I'm only at the 5th chapter at the moment. The first thoughts when reading were that I immediately had to think about the 'Life of Pi'. Till now I like the story and I'm curious about what's going to happen on the island.
Printable View
I'm only at the 5th chapter at the moment. The first thoughts when reading were that I immediately had to think about the 'Life of Pi'. Till now I like the story and I'm curious about what's going to happen on the island.
THIS COULD BE A SPOILERQuote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Chapter 14
Dr. Moreau Explains
If you read this chapter closely, you will see that some of these "scientific experiments" have actually come true. And, some of them are being used in modern science! For example, (granted, I am not a scientist!) skin grafting! Modern doctors do exactly this to rebuild destructed body parts. Like, taking skin from the thigh to rebuild a nose or ear, etc. that may have been destroyed in an accident. They also do this for sex changes- I have heard. Bone grafting happens all the time! Ex. bone gets grafted onto teeth to help rebuild the calcium and strengthen week teeth. "The grafting of skin and bone is done to facilitate healing". Direct from the text, this is true and happens today!
Now, piecing together animals, I do not know of this...but, isn't the result similar to breeding? I dunno if it happens today surgically. Hmmm...oh, what about transplants? Yes! A monkey's heart into a human body. Stuff like this has happened!
I don't know about animals being surgically tortured to become more human, but we certainly have put animal pieces into humans. And, human pieces into other humans.
Freaky to say the least! :alien:
The other thing I find fascinating is the discussion of pain and pleasure. Moreau, in the same chapter, tells us about our sensations of pleasure and pain, and tells about certain parts of the body that do not register pain:
"All living flesh is not painful, nor is all nerve, nor even all sensory nerve." He goes on to talk about the optic nerve, and how if this is wounded, we do not sense pain, we just see flashes of light instead. Another example is our auditory nerve. When this is wounded, we do not feel pain, but instead, hear a "humming in our ears". Again, I am not a scientist or doctor, but I wonder if this is all true? It seems to make some sense to me...
Yes, I found this interesting too. Moreau casts off these creatures when they fall short of being perfect humans. If they are not perfect humans, he finds no interest in them. They are of no value to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
It is interesting how you can parallel Moreau (and Montgomery?) with the idea of him trying to be God. God too cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because they fell short of how God wanted them to act. Moreau is trying to create a human. When Montgomery comes to the island and lets the rabbits go he says "Increase and multiply, my friends" this is a biblical comparison.
Wells definately weaves in things into the text to suggest what Moreau is doing is bad, devilish, dark, diabolical. From this, Wells must be saying something about science. It seems as if Wells does not think science should interfere with or try to change nature (God?).
Montgomery does seem to be much more sympathetic with "the creatures" than Moreau is. Montgomery serves as a go between with them once they are cast out, and he is shown to have sympathy about the animals suffering while being experimented on. Here's an example that shows this:
"Suddenly the puma howled again, this time more painfull. Montogmery swore under this breath." I think Montgomery is uncomfortable with the animals experiencing such pain, and remember that Montgomery had similar feelings as Prendick when he first came to the island.
Chapter Nine:Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
"Each of these creatures, despite its human form, its rag of clothing and the rough humanity of its bodily form, had woven into it, into its movements, into the expression of its countenance, into its whole presence, some now irresistible suggestion of a hog, a swinish taint, the unmistakable mark of the beast."
I don't think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution asserts that "humans evolved from monkeys" but I believe it does suggest that living entities do change and evolve over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
But, I agree with you that I think Wells is portraying Moreau as being representative of Darwin, and I do not think Wells was a supporter of Darwin. Of course, I haven't finished the book....
I find this whole Darwin thing very confusing.. i haven't studied The Origin of Species either...
but i don't think he ever said we should speed evolution up...
so if Wells was trying to criticize Darwin, his criticism can't have been directed against that idea (speeding evolution up)
... so IF he was criticizing him, it means he must have been sceptical of the whole idea of evolution itself. i.e. the Beast people's running amok proves that the theory of evolution is mistaken, because if humans had evolved from animals (like the Beast-Humans 'evolve' from animals in the book) they'd go bonkers all the time and wouldn't be human at all. i.e. humans did NOT evolve from animals because they're not like the Beasts.
but then, when Prendick returns he begins to see that his fellow-humans are a lot like the Beast people... so that seems to 'prove' that humans evolved from Beasts?
hm... "intended as a commentary on Darwin's theory of evolution" doesn't need to mean Wells was against this theory does it??? it could also mean something like "see, I've told you, humans are beasts and I've got Darwin on my side" ????
there's some intersting points in the appendix of the edition i've got... I'll share them with you later on, don't wanna spoil the discussion right now :)
***hehe sorry for being a pedantic old bore*** :goof:
Oh yes, I was aware that grafting and transplants are something that we do today, but the people who recieve those surgeries must take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. Otherwise the body will naturally try to force the foreign cells out. Just like when you have virus; there's a foreign cell in your body and so it releases more white blood cells to fight it. The white blood cells cause symtoms like the fever, trying to "burn" the virus. The anti-rejection drug keeps this from happening to the transplanted cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
Sorry, that bit stuck with me from nursing school and I was thinking about it as I read the book.
I think Moreau's "speeding up" of evolution was just a tool for Wells to prove a point. Otherwise the story wouldn't happen. As far as Prendick seeing beast people in humans when he returns to civilization, I can see that. Here's what I said about that early on in the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I'd like to here those points in your appendix (I read from this site).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
Very interesting! Is Wells saying that Moreau is Darwin or that he's trying to be God? Or is he saying that Darwin is trying to be God? I've got to think about this one for a while.
Oh, and I guess monkeys is just what everyone says. I just think about that drawing of the evolution of man.
Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I probably won't finish the book until Monday as I've got another to finish by Saturday (to meet with an 'in real life' book group!).
I'm also interested in hearing about the info in the appendix!
This is an interesting fact that I did not know! We can apply this to the book too. The creatures can be seen as naturally forcing out the foreign 'humaness' and reverting back to their original animalistic selves. Maybe Moreau needed to keep them on some type of 'anti-rejection drugs' too? I can see "The Law" as trying to be this type of "drug".Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Hmmm...interesting....
I think that Wells is saying that Moreau is trying to be God- in the light that he is literally trying to make a (perfect) human. And, I think Wells' personal view on this is that it is bad for man to try to be God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Still reading...
I haven't read this book of the month, but I was reading the posts, trying to skip over the spoilers, when I thought this quote from Darwin's The Descent of Man might be applicable; it amuses me:
"For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs -- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
Oooh! I hadn't thought of that! Did they have anti-rejection drugs back then? I guess that's like Arthur Miller depicting Alzheimer's before it was a regular diagnosis.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
I'm really enjoying this discussion!
I don't think I've ever read any Darwin....Quote:
Originally Posted by chmpman
but, from reading this quote, I wonder if he was saying that sometimes "animals" act more humanely than humans, sometimes? This is quite a dense excerpt, but it seems clear to me that Darwin is criticizing humans' actions here.
An afterthought: It's interesting Darwin's choice of title: The Descent of Man- as in descending...going down. His title was not the Ascent of Man!