I have
come across H.G. Wells' work before.
From the countless remakes and homages to the numerous works he created,
it would be hard not to be completely naive to his works. Neglecting to read the original works, of
course, can last for some people years and years. There is a certain unique manner that people
would prefer to view spin off works ad nauseum rather than return to the source
material which will continue until people begin to be fed up with derivative
works, but I digress. I had listened to
"The Time Machine" as an audio book a few years ago as a way of
making my 40 minute commute a little more enjoyable. In effect it did, mostly due to how Wells is
able to tell a story and engage the reader.
Both stories are told in a first person perspective by a character
recalling their journey. Wells is able
to instill fear for the safety of the narrator despite the reader knowing that
they survive their trips because they have lived to tell about it. I think I might be moving too quick, so let
me tell you a bit about the plot.
A
vassal carrying Edward Prendrick sinks out in the Pacific Ocean which caused
him to retreat to a lifeboat for safety.
Ten days later being the last man alive of his dinghy, he is rescued by
Montgomery. Edward is taken onto a ship
filled with various animals set for the titular island, which is technically
incorrect since the island never receives a name. When the ship reaches its destination, Edward
is abandoned by the ship's captain to a dinghy sitting off the coast. Dr. Moreau and Montgomery, his assistant,
take Edward in reluctantly. There,
Edward learns about the experiments that Moreau performs on the various
creatures that he has shipped in to his island.
Afterwards, the reader finds out about how deep and terrible the
experiments that Moreau performs are.
Anything
beyond that would be a betrayal of keeping the big reveal kept tight under
wraps, but since the book's back page summary gives it away, I guess I can say
it. The big reveal is that Moreau is
performing vivisections n the animals in effort to make them humanoids or as
close to people as close to people as he can.
The only reluctance that makes me say this is the fact that the book
tries to make an emphasis on Edward thinking that Moreau is turning people into
the creatures he finds. Knowing that
Moreau is making Beast Folk from even before the story starts ruins the
introduction of a few characters. If I
have spoiled the story for you, Internet, you can count yourself fortunate that
it was only a 104 page book I ruined, which can be read in one sitting. I remember when the final plot points were
ruined for me when I read "A Tale of Two Cities" in the first two
sentences of the introduction. This is
the very reason that I refuse to read introductions for books until after I
finish them.
All of
that spoilering is fine and dandy, but I am supposed to be talking about
"The Island of Dr. Moreau," right?
The story is plenty interesting if at least a bit far stretched. The book tries to say that the doctor is
making these abominations through vivisections.
The extents of these creatures' abilities include low level pondering
and basic speech. They walk upright and
can even handle a hatchet. The problem
of course is saying that vivisection can alter these creatures in such a way to
obtain these results. Moreau is even
explained to create his creatures by combining the animals together. A modern individual, and most likely a person
of the time of the writing of the novel, can see through this in an
instant. The notion of alternating the
physical and mental makeup of creatures through such a crass procedure is
preposterous. There are dozens of things
that would prevent such medical anomalies.
Foremost would be tissue acceptance and genetic compatibilities. Then there are blood types, not to mention
that Moreau has to do his experiments confined to an island with limited
resources. Every story, especially in
the case of science-fiction, is allowed one "go with it"
element. It is an exception to logic
that the rest of the story hinges on to make it interesting. "Star Wars" has the force. "The Time Machine" has the
machine. The plausibility of Moreau's
experiments pushes its luck, but if you can get past it, you can find an
intriguing story that wants to delve into the nature of man.
Moreau
wants to play God. There is no way
around this. He makes creatures for his
own enjoyment while hiding behind the mask of scientific progress. If he is trying to create Beast Folk for a
reason, the only thing that can be his final end is to try and redeem himself
in the eyes of his peers back in England.
Otherwise he is a monomaniac.
Strike that, he is a monomaniac no matter his reason. The only thing that can point him as
otherwise is that he does admit to creating non-humanoid monsters, but that
only means instead of having one mania he has more. He even goes as far as to bend the creatures
to his own will by placing upon them a Law, which becomes a mantra for the
animals throughout the story. The Law
includes rules against killing, how to walk, and how to eat among other
things. The problem with the Law is that
it all revolves around Moreau being their god and maker. Once his omnipotence is shown to be faulty,
the whole thing caves in upon itself for those still remaining. The creatures understand the Law as a set of
rules. What they are incapable of
understanding is the reasoning behind the rules. If they could understand it, they would
realize that the Law is not for their betterment but to keep them in line. Moreau doe not only want to be the creator of
this new and twisted life but also their ruler.
Edward
falls into the trappings of the Law but for different reasons. He professes the correctness of the Law but
only because he wishes to maintain the balance.
If he did not say that the Law is right, he would have been fodder for
the homunculus. He tells the creatures
that the Law is still true despite that Moreau dies at one point. The way that he tells the creatures that
Moreau is still a god comes across as especially skin crawling, probably since
he does not believe a word of it. In a
way, Edward takes on the sins of Moreau by proclaiming that the Law and its
punishments are still in effect despite the truth of the matter. Whenever he talks to the beasts, it is almost
as if he is a completely different person from the one that has been narrating
the story and telling the reader about his thoughts on the subject.
All of
this has to boil down to something, right?
You can take the obvious thing away from it and say that "The
Island of Dr. Moreau" is a criticism of organized religion, specifically
Christianity. That is probably why Wells
refers to this book as "an exercise in youthful blasphemy." Moreau makes himself a god that creates for
his own desires and ego. He is
eventually killed by his own creations, a reference to the death of Jesus. Edward is forced to keep up the pretend Law
or religion for his own ends, but he is more a bystander than anything
else. If you look at the book in this
light, which is easy to do once Edward starts prophesying to the Beast Folk
after Moreau's death, it all becomes very shallow. The argument has been made long ago and has
been found wanting. The biggest hole
here is that Moreau is about the farthest thing away from God. He is a madman. While the book does a great job in trying to
portray the story of Icarus through the dangers of a modern scientific world,
it is best when it stays away from the sun.
"The
Island of Dr Moreau" is a good novel, albeit a bit short. The book has a way of being light upon the
descriptions of the Beast Folk, which I thought would have been a great focus
for the horror of the novel. It almost
completely glosses over the laboratory, short of one or two lines when Edward
stumbles in on it. Looking up
vivisection turned my stomach more than the novel was able to. But that is more or less because the terror of
the novel does not revolve around the physical nature. It is a cautionary tale of how the endeavors
of men can disregard the ethics of their actions.
Yours in digital,
BeepBoop
P.S. Tomorrow is "Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki."
No comments:
Post a Comment