Theme Of Vivisection In The Island Of Dr. Moreau

Vivisection is the act of cutting into something that is alive. Imagine walking past the Park Science building and hearing the screams from a puma that was being prodded at by a group of lab students here at Simmons College. The idea of vivisection makes the stomach curl. However in the 19th century the concept of vivisection was not nearly as taboo as it is today.

In his novel “The Island of Dr. Moreau”, H.G. Wells creates a world (or rather an island) where vivisection is not only practiced, but the possibilities of it are proven endless. Through vivisection the novel demonstrates the downfall of man, and shows what happens when science is used as a form of “playing God”.

In the novel Dr. Moreau plays as a God figure in regards to the beast

Moreau uses vivisection to try to turn animal into man. The beast folk are his attempts at this experiment. Moreau wants to create humans from animals, but in doing so he actually creates a form of creature that is neither quite animal or human, and therefore this creature is more isolated from the world. When the science goes too far (or perhaps not far enough?) the lonely scientist creates a lonely culture. The beast folk are distorted like the Mary Shelley’s monster in “Frankenstein”. However, unlike the monster, there is an entire community of beast folk. Imagine an island full of Dr. Frankenstein’s monsters- it’s not exactly the most comforting feeling. This is where the fall of man becomes a possibility. In Dr. Moreau, we see the fall of the scientist and his accomplice Montgomery. They both fall victim to their creations. I would argue that they fell because they had no goal in creating hybrid animal-humans. Prendick says, “Had Moreau had any intelligible object I could have sympathised at least a little with him. I am not so squeamish about pain as that. I could have forgiven him a little even had his motive been hate. But he was so irresponsible, so utterly careless. His curiosity, his mad, aimless investigations, drove him on, and the things were thrown out to live a year or so, to struggle and blunder and suffer; at last to die painfully” (Wells 74). Moreau was not driven by the betterment of humanity through his experiments. Like Prendick believes, his work

Moreau” a cautionary tale? I believe it is. It is a response to something that was extremely controversial in its time period, and it seems as if the response is not a terribly positive one. However, I wouldn’t say the text is against the science of vivisection, rather it seems like the text is against the experimentation for pleasure rather than goal. Otis writes, “The Island of Dr Moreau goes so far as to challenge the psychological criteria for human superiority. His violent, drunken characters display little reason, intelligence, or communicative ability” (Otis 133). Dr. Moreau is not only lacking in ethics, but also in intelligence. That points towards this text being a bad reflection on the scientist rather than the science. The science in the text is necessary; vivisection, regardless of how disgusting it is, was extremely necessary for the progressions science made. Instead, it is the scientist in this text that is not necessary. Dr. Moreau is a figure who represents what happens when science has no purpose. Similarly, it’s like when you read a book that has no purpose, or an essay with no thesis; you read it and feel disappointed, and eventually it becomes