Essay on The Island of Doctor Moreau
Essay analysing the techniques used in The Island of Dr. Moreau that imply the qualities of a better world
H.G. Wells, in writing the novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, used many literary techniques, which implied the world was imperfect, and at the same time suggested some ways of improving it. By revealing to the reader all the faults and fallacies of the world through the plot, characters, and other issues presented, we can look the other way, and see a far better world than the essentially satanic world our own world has become.
In summary, Edward Prendick finds himself on a small boat, after being rescued from sunken ?Lady Vain?. Montgomery, another passenger on the boat, cares for him. Prendick unknowingly follows Montgomery?s advice, and they both leave the boat together when they reach the island of past vivisectionist Dr. Moreau, a move Prendick would regret for the rest of his life. The relatively simple plot helps develop the characters, as well as present the issues in great detail. Essentially, The Island of Dr. Moreau is a resonant warning against scientific obsessiveness.
It is implied throughout the novel that the world is imperfect through the use of evil, sly, violent, impure, and corrupt characters. All of the main characters in The Island of Dr. Moreau have been constructed in such a way that they tie in with perfection, and the achievement of it. By using characters such as the drunkard Montgomery, Wells is able to weed out the imperfections of the flesh, and expose them for all to see. Moreau considers it his job to find these imperfections in man, and destroy them, by doing so making the perfect man. As a big part of the world is the existence of man, if the world were populated by perfect beings, the world would take on characteristics of perfection, improving it dramatically. Moreau manifests himself as a god, thinking himself to be perfect, and tries to make everyone else like him. This is shown by ?the law? by which the beast people live by on the island, ?His is the hand that makes, his is the hand that wounds, his is the hand that heals?. Ironically, in the world of today, it is people like Moreau who are considered the corrupt and evil members of society. Moreau had become a god (god being perfect) of sorts through his immoral use of science. This being much like Wells? own beliefs in the capabilities of science at the time this novel was written, and his perfectionist attitude towards mankind. Wells believed that science could make man perfect and live as gods. In the novel, this did indeed happen, but only to the character of Moreau, and it came at a price. Moreau became an outcast and was forced to remove himself from society after people had found out about what he had done. Moreau probably had the best of intentions, though he was so obsessed with his dream of creating perfection, he failed to realise the moral and ethical implication. The various assortments of beast people are far from perfect. Disfigurements such as 4 or fewer fingers are the results of failed vivisection operations in The House of Pain, Dr. Moreau?s laboratory and surgery. This is shown when Moreau tells Prendick about his projects and affairs on the island, ?These creatures you have seen are animals carven and wrought into new shapes.? By grafting parts of different animals onto other animals while they are still conscious (vivisection), Moreau tries to create the perfect form of life with no flaws. In his attempts, he creates nothing but monsters, far less perfect than the original, demonstrating that you cannot compare the human form with the bestial animal form. The creatures, no, the world he tries to perfect was instead corrupted by his own foolishness and arrogance.
Through the excessive consumption of alcohol, Montgomery had fallen victim to the inner animal side of the human psyche, the raw roots of our existence (according to Darwinian theory).
Montgomery was a very confused character in the novel. Caught up in a vicious circle of drinking and a hunger for power, he probably had no concept of the terrors Moreau was creating. Montgomery represented the every day man of the world as it is now. A pathetic creature, void of rationality, and ruled by emotion, though still imbued will the desire to strive to higher levels. Moreau often expressed his disapproval of Montgomery?s various habits and actions, ?So long as pain underlines your propositions about sin, you are an animal?, and again after he was found drunk, ?You?ve made a beast of yourself, to the beasts you may go?. Far from perfection by Moreau?s standards, yet Moreau continually made concessions for him.
Prendick is presented to us as a runt of sorts. You are not given the impression that he is well built or exceptionally tall. You are not presented an awful lot of information about him at all, besides the fact that he is a stereotypical English gentleman; he behaves rationally, is relatively conservative, and has a
reasonable level of intelligence. His gentleman like nature helps convince the reader to believe what
he has said and written. This adds to the realism, as does the journal-like format of the novel. Prendick is an interesting character, as he defies the theory of survival of the fittest. In his case, brain beats brawn. It makes you wonder whether Prendick was going to live from the start, or if his survival was mere chance.
The social issues presented in the novel are very controversial, and many also deal with the act of achieving perfection. This novel implies the qualities of a ?better world? in more of an indirect way than one would
suppose. Another issue is the idea that man has the capacity to play god given the benefits of science. Even at the time of Wells, when technology levels were not all that impressive, people still marvelled at the power of science, and many people of the time, including Wells, believed that man could become perfect like gods, and people could live without bother, and without care. Another issue is that of the possibilities of science versus morality and ethics. Even though Moreau had the scientific ability to change these animals (perfect as they already were) into hideous monstrosities, he did not have to. This brings us back to the very controversial issue of genetic modification and cloning in the society of today. Should we allow human cloning and genetic modification if there is the risk of great failure and side-effects such as those that have been suggested in the novel, many of which we know can happen through previous experimentation on animals? This novel serves as a very grim warning. Should we compromise our morals and ethics if there is tremendous risk involved in these complex processes? There are two many places where error can occur. Genes are very complex, and scientists still do not know half of what they are doing when they fiddle with DNA. You could say that Dolly the sheep was a success, but would you still call her a success if you knew about the quantity of sheep embryos and newborn lambs that had to die to create her?
What would the world be like if the only species of animal that lived on the earth were mice, elephant, or chimpanzee? Diversity is what makes the world interesting, and sets a course for perfection. Hitler tried to create a master race, and look where he ended up. A better world is a world where there is diversity, peace, and an interest in the surroundings. Moreau obviously didn?t believe this, or didn?t realise it. Perfection is not the mastery of a single attribute of state or existence, but the mastery of an infinite number of factors that are always changing as a result of the actions of the living, and the consequences of time in certain circumstances.
There is an animal inside us all that has survived since the beginning. This animal is terrible to behold, yet it is just and good in essence. Without our animal side, we would not be human, and without our animal side, we could never be perfect. We can aim, and indeed the world can be desired to be perfect, but it always a dream, nothing more. You can tell that the novel supports this by the ways in which it presents the social issues contained within it, and the ways in which the characters often strive to be better. To finish with a quote from Aristotle, ?He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."
