Printable View
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JwellsH.jpg
In March, we are reading The Island of Dr Moreau by HG Wells (The initials stand for Herbert George)!
The Online CopyQuote:
The science hangs like a gathering fog in a valley, a fog which begins nowhere and goes nowhere, an incidental, unmeaning inconvenience to passers-by.
Book Club Procedures
Started reading this last night, and, I really like Well's writing style. This is the second Wells book I am reading (The War of the Worlds being the first) and in this book as well, he grips the reader with his technique and story line from the very first page.
I just got the book last night.
hehe they only had the book with the movie plastered all over the cover - darn it to heck!!!! Luckily it's a library book or I wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole.
Hi everyone! I'm doing better.
This book was on my reading list for my teaching exams so I was happy when I found that you guys had voted for it. I just finished it this afternoon, and I really enjoyed it.
Like Scher said, it's quite gripping, and with that and the fact that it's short (it only took me a couple of days), I hope I can convince Leo to read it. But I have a feeling that he will only get to watching the movie.
SPOILER
Even my little knowledge of science tells me that Moreau's experiments are impossible, but willingly suspending my disbelief, I like the exploration of nature and it's effects. Even in reality, animals can be trained, but every once in a while their natural instincts kick in. Like when the friendly family dog suddenly attacks. Wells explores this on the human side too. While on the island, Prendick has been "trained" to be wary of the creatures surrounding him and carries this over back to civilization. But finally, he becomes more naturally adapted to people once more.
Anyone know of what the "hot topics" that were being discussed at the time that might have inspired Wells to write such a book?
Just wanted to say that I picked up the book today at the library, and I'm hoping to participate in the book discussion. I saw the movie several years ago, and am excited to read the book! It blows my mind that it came out in 1896! The book jacket says that it is "intended as a commentary on Darwin's theory of evolution".
Of course! :idea: I don't know why I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for sharing genoveva! I need to ponder that a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
So, when do we start discussing the book? Do we do it here or just in the live chat, and when? Thanks for letting me know. I'm only on page 50, but already a few things have come up that I'd like to talk about.
I like Wells and have this book on the shelf, so I will try to join. I already read 'The war of the Worlds' and 'The time machine' and liked those. I'm gonna start reading tonight!
Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
You can start to discuss it any time you like. Just be sure to note if you've got any spoilers. I've already finished, so talk away! :nod:
i'm about 3/4 through with it. So far it's ironic that Moreau casts off the creatures when they fall short of human characteristics. But when he describes the human characteristics a good deal of humans fall short. hmmm.... I wish I brought the book to work today, I could have copied the passage.
Well, I'm only at the bit where Prendick arms himself with a chair arm (w/nail) and runs away from Moreau's dwelling because he is concerned (paranoid?) that they might vivisect him!! Ew! That's the chapter right after he hears a man crying and thinks that they are vivisecting a human...
Earlier, I think it's really interesting how the author blatantly describes these "creatures" as having the mark of the beast. As if to say this is a devilish act & they are of the devil. Will post the passage later...(left the book upstairs and am too lazy to go get it!)
THIS PART COULD BE A SPOILER
I'm wondering if there will be any repercussion for Prendick killing that creature that was chasing him...I can see how it was self defense, but, he shouldn't have been there in the first place, plus, later he does wonder if the creature was just trying to catch him and warn him or keep him from going back to Moreau's dwelling (for his own good, so he doesn't get vivisected himself)...
Do you mean Well's description or Moreau's?Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Sometimes it is difficult to tell what exactly is going on. It's kind of neat, as a reader you feel kind of lost running around in the jungle of the island like Prendick.
He doesn't actually kill him, but the creature is significant and I don't want to spoil the later plot for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
SPOILER
After pondering the Darwin influence, I was thinking, did Wells mean for Moreau to sort of represent Darwin? I honestly haven't studied Darwin, so let me know if I'm wrong. If Darwin says that humans evolved from monkeys and Moreau was trying to make more 'human-like' animals, then Moreau was just trying to speed up evolution. If this is what Wells is saying, then he doesn't like Darwin at all. 'Enhanced evolution' doesn't work, nature takes over, and Moreau/Darwin is killed by his own creation. Not only that but a good point is made here by genoveva,
Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
Moreau's description. When he talks about the creatures enduring pain in order to become "human".Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Finished the book last night. Reminds me of an old commercial - It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature! (I think it was for butter).
I haven't studied Darwin either but it seemed to me the message was - we are what we are, it takes more then a lifetime to evolve and surgically altering doesn't change our true nature.
Damn it I really don't want to read Darwin can someone explain???
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!
I haven't finished the book yet (still some chapters to go) but I was very taken aback by Chapter 12 - 'The Sayers of the Law':I find these very chilling and cannot help wondering if it is a reference to God and religious teachings. I agree with Genevova that Moreau is playing the God on his island and the rules set by him are very similar to those that are imposed by religions in nature. Moreau creates these half animal creatures but expects them not to act upon their 'animal' sides; force them to go against their nature and instincts.Quote:
Not to go on all-Fours;that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to suck up Drink;that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to eat Flesh nor Fish;that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to claw Bark or Trees;that is the Law. Are we not Men?
Not to chase other Men;that is the Law. Are we not Men?
In religions as well, we humanbeing (who are created and programmed by God) are expected not to do things which are in our nature and not to act on our instincts... Don't be greedy, jealous etc etc. Like God, Moreau also creates these creatures with certain characteristics but then force laws upon them so that they should learn ignoring these.
Disclaimer: I am not being critical of God or religions here but just pointing out a similarity, I believe, exists.
Yes, I too was taken aback by "The Law". In addition to the similarities with the structure of religion, I thought this law and the law creator can also be compared to Government, and the laws it demands of its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I think he was using the word root as it is used in 'descendent', referring to how man came to be in his present evolutionary state. Although he may have been hinting at what you say, I don't think too much should be read into there.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
In reading over other's posts, I think perhaps people are reading a little much into the story that is not really there. The general premise that if you begin to preform experiments that are beyond nature, to force the "hand of God" or evolution, you are playing with fire I would agree with. Having then made this race of pseudohumans, Moreau then finds that although you can change the outside surgically, the basic nature of the creature still remains the same. In other words any evolutionary process has to change both the outside and inside of a chreature for true change to occur. He is unwilling to admit that this is a process that could take time, or the hand of a higher power. So he makes his "Sayer of the Law", his "Moses", if you will. But the creatures, already unable to grasp any but simple things, quickly turn Moreau into their God. "His is the stars in the sky...His is the deep blue sea..." And for all of his science, they are degrading back into what they once were, for he could not give them greater intelligence, but tried to force them to be different.
It is not just an allagory against playing God by using science, but by forcing people to believe certain moral codes and living practices. Force does no good. The old "Lead a horse to water" adage comes to mind. If he's thirsty, he'll find the water, probably before you get the chance to lead him to it. When the student is ready, the master will appear. I have been the "force-fed" way, and I'm sure many of you have. It doesn't work very well. But a journey of discovery will send one to ask questions of one who may know.
And that is the lesson of "The Island of Doctor Moreau." Force things to be different and you end up with madness. :nod:
First, without reading the rest of the posts, my opinion about the book. I really enjoyed reading it, interesting story. It's written well and you want to finish it, because you want to know what will happen to this strange Beast Men. It also scared me. I don't know if it's really possible in todays sience to create such creatures, but they are terrible. The end is a little bit unconvenied, kind of boring finish of the story. But it really made me think about the unwanted possibilities of science.
The thing I didn't like about the book, as I noticed it before with Wells, that he's writing in a story-teller perspective. Just somebody telling his story afterwards.
Then, some reactions on some posts in this topic.
Good point, didn't think about that. But now I read it, it can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
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?).
I don't know if Wells is really critisizing Darwin. Darwin doesn't speak about human interference, but about how evolution went naturally (not read "The origin of species" yet, but still want to). It more looks like an attack to science, but I don't know what they were doing that day. Seems to fit today more, with cloning and replacing faces (happened in France a couple of months ago).
Also thought that when reading this and I didn't like the idea of Moreau placing himself at Gods place. But later on I understood why he did it, otherwise the Beast Men would be to dangerous. (I don't say I agree with this way of acting and this is also not the way how it goes in accepted religions)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I find these very chilling and cannot help wondering if it is a reference to God and religious teachings.
SPOILER
Prendick also goes on with this behaviour, by telling that Moreau is still watching.
The Government/State interpretation is also possible, I guess, but what I find important here is that God and Moreau actually themselves create the creatures and then expect them not to act upon their basic instincts. The State, on the other hand, does not 'create' its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
Yes, I agree that Moreau tries to supress the Beast Men's animal instincts by making them learn these laws (in a way trying to condition them). It is, however, of little use. This all reminds me of ourselves as well. even though we are 'civilised' and conditioned to act in a certain way, it would take very little for us to put it all aside and turn to our 'savage', animal selves.Quote:
Originally Posted by erna