Information
Finished reading date: January 15th, 2023
My rating (out of 5): ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Genre(s): Science fiction, classic
Summary
Edward Pendrick survives a shipwreck only to be thrust into a world where science is at odds with natural design. Having been picked up by a passerby ship, coincidence—or perhaps fate—leads him to the island of Doctor Moreau, a scientist who has been removed from London society due to his hideous experiments on animals. Moreau has continued his life’s research in the safety of this island’s seclusion, attempting to twist animals’ natural form into that of a human through days of surgery. However, as much as he crafts and constructs these animals into his composed image, he finds that the beast can never be fully extinguished.
Pendrick has to find a way to navigate Moreau’s insanity as well as the secrets of the island in order to survive in this sci-fi thriller that questions pain, humanity, and more.
Analysis Rant
To be honest, I could have easily given this a three or four-star rating for several reasons. It’s not a perfect book by any means if perfect is being used to mean “without fault.” Certainly, there are weaknesses within the book. And yet, I don’t necessarily think that a book having a weakness becomes the end of the discussion, but rather, how well the weakness is covered by other aspects and angles and, ultimately, how deeply I responded to it. More than anything, I found myself in love with this book and fully engaged from start to finish, and this is why I gave it the rating I did. (It would also be an interesting bit to re-read my 5-star rated books in a year and see how different times and moods influence perspective when reading.)
When considering those weaknesses, I think one of the biggest is believability. One of the most important aspects of good science fiction, I think, (and particularly science fiction, not necessarily fantasy) is the ability to suspend disbelief. In other words, it has to be just believable enough that it reads as if it could happen. Works like 1984 and Brave New World reflect this, I believe. Within this, though, it’s particularly difficult to stand the test of time for these types of books, as the science is either proven to never exist (even in this current future… although not necessarily excluding a further future), the science exists but we had developed standards in which to never use them in such a way, or that the science in the book has turned out to be wrong entirely. Within this book, it’s difficult because as science currently stands, this is likely impossible to happen. In such a way, it almost feels like a lot of fiction with a little science, and I’m not sure that’s my favorite, but it’s not awful.
The sci-fi classic novels that hit just that level of believability and terror lean into that feeling of “prophecy” (having arrived at a current-day issue even though written in the past), and yet, I think it really just reflects a deep understanding of both scientific questions and human patterns: asking the questions in regard to what they are currently seeing (and understanding it) and then exaggerating the outcomes to create “fiction” rather than a conspiracy theory/report of paranoia or documentary.
Perhaps this piece of fiction is showing that Wells’ held more hope (or more fear) for what we could do in the future of science, and therefore, overshot. In such a way, Frankenstein or books that engage in thought about birthing new humans from “nothing” (or parts of humans) may reflect more common-day concerns. As always, the concept of life seems to be questioned a great deal in sci-fi, and I am all for this.
Excellent science fiction seems to tap into the present-day current of scientific advancement and its’ attached fears and concerns that come with it.
However, in some ways, I wonder how well good sci-fi can be written today. For, sci-fi is often tapping into the concept of “moving past” what is good and right. However, considering what “good” and “right” are requires knowledge of a base, and in the time of Wells’ United Kingdom, Christian ethics of God’s design was considered the standard. Perhaps nowadays, as a collective Western culture, we are leaning more toward scientific ethics based on human and animal rights (although one could argue that many ethics are also rooted in religious thought) as the standard.
However, even in current thought, ethics is generally poorly taught to the public, and subjective morality reigns. Therefore, while one person may find a story believable due to their concept of “right” and “wrong,” one might find it perfectly reasonable. A fear now is that in this case, we live in a world where one side often attempts to cancel the other for believing differently. In Wellian times, this idea of “natural design” was likely widely accepted; however, in current times, if this was published, it likely would cause an upset. “Who gets to decide natural design?” “I can decide what is natural for me.” “This type of black-and-white thinking is detrimental.” These kinds of comments might sound. Constructive discussion is very rarely a bad thing, however, the silencing of another’s voice and story for not holding up their beliefs is extremely destructive to all parties involved. Interestingly, when animals are involved, I think, collectively, people now would be against this kind of experimentation. There are entire groups who are fully invested in protecting animal rights, and when considering the protection of those who do not have a voice, I am relatively for this. However, upheaval over animal surgery versus human surgery becomes an interesting conversation. Perhaps it comes down to consent and one’s own choice. But at the same time, standards are necessary even when considering who is in the right mind to get consent. Likewise, it’s interesting to consider how responsible or if we are responsible in protecting (or at least informing) people with and of their potentially poor choices and the information around them.
Anyway, while this book largely misses the mark with the science, Moreau’s monologue around pain and the evolution of pain is interesting and tracked for me, for the most part. However, I felt like his argument wasn’t particularly compelling. The book itself was curious because it was unearthing big questions but very quietly. I think much of what we were supposed to consider was between the lines rather than spelling everything out. I don’t hate that style, but it did make it feel like it was unfinished, somehow. The ending, though, wrapped everything up for me in a nice, neat bow, and that is ultimately what did it for me.
While reality wasn’t perfectly suspended, what really hit me was the emotion—it felt like how you would feel IF this indeed were to happen. Pendrick’s response of fear and thirst for survival, his disgust and empathy, his full range of emotions that was deeply reflective of a human conscience and yet can show what a traumatic situation can do to you, all of this hit me as believable. The trauma-induced response at the end was very well executed. Likewise, there was also this numbness in between all of the emotions, and I related to that. In between the drama, there was just the lull of survival and trying to stay sane, a depression of sorts—the physical acts devoid of emotion.
Writer’s Takeaway
- Human nature and the question of what is life is one of the richest battlegrounds for a writer. I think a million books could be written about human nature and life, and they could all describe a different aspect in a different way. Don’t ever be scared of getting all of it right. We won’t. Because we just can’t see it all.
- Sci-fi and fantasy allow us to explore something that doesn’t exist (yet) and to be wrong about it. Recognize that with sci-fi, though, even fictitious science has limits, and even if your audience isn’t scientists, maybe they will see the faults in your argument. If you don’t want that to happen, do your research well.
- Lit gap: modern philosophical sci-fi books that pick apart at these questions (but not in a precocious way—just real)
- Questions for writing sci-fi:
- Where is current science moving toward?
- What is the most exaggerated form of that trend?
- Where is the point when the idea becomes too unbelievable? → pull back from there
Annotated Passages
They sank like stones. I remember laughing at that, and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without.
→ Shock sometimes comes in form of laughter.
I was not curious to learn what might have driven a young medical student out of London. I have an imagination.
→ Such a great line. The imagination creates a million stories, a million lives. Often times we are more amused and entertained by what we can imagine rather than real life, fiction over truth.
The study of Nature makes a man at last as remorseless as Nature.
→ An interesting thought; arguable but interesting
I might just as well have worked to form sheep into llamas and llamas into sheep. I suppose there is something in the human form that appeals to the artistic turn of mind more powerfully than any animal shape can.
→ Moreau viewed himself as God and made creatures in his image; he taught his creatures to respect him through hypnosis and power; it’s interesting how the concept of godhood gets so quickly corrupted when in the hands of man; having to enforce belief in godhood by power is proof that you are no god; God needs no followers and needs not to demonstrate power; it is us who need it
Before, they had been beasts, their instincts fitly adapted to their surroundings, and happy as living things may be. Now they stumbled in the shackles of humanity, lived in a fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not understand; their mock-human existence, begun in an agony, was one long internal struggle, one long dread of Moreau—and for what?
An animal may be ferocious and cunning enough, but it takes a real man to tell a lie.
→ Deception requires free will
Then I look about me at my fellow-men; and I go in fear. I see faces, keen and bright; others dull or dangerous; others, unsteady, insincere,—none that have the calm authority of a reasonable soul. I feel as though the animal was surging up through them; that presently the degradation of the Islanders will be played over again on a larger scale. I know this is an illusion; that these seeming men and women about me are indeed men and women,—men and women for ever, perfectly reasonable creatures, full of human desires and tender solicitude, emancipated from instinct and the slaves of no fantastic Law,—beings altogether different from the Beast Folk. Yet I shrink from them, from their curious glances, their inquiries and assistance, and long to be away from them and alone.
→ Humans and animals; alike and very different, with the greatest difference being of the greatest importance; human nature is a mixture of the brightest brights and the darkest darks
There is—though I do not know how there is or why there is—a sense of infinite peace and protection in the glittering hosts of heaven. There it must be, I think, in the vast and eternal laws of matter, and not in the daily cares and sins and troubles of men, that whatever is more than animal within us must find its solace and its hope. I hope, or I could not live. And so, in hope and solitude, my story ends.
→ Favorite line. Heaven is where our true hope resides. And the greatest hope residing upon when heaven comes down to earth. Our animalistic side is satisfied with this earthly, carnal, fleshly life, our eyes kept to the ground, kept to ourselves; but it is our soul, our longing for home, that draws our eyes upwards in hope for something more, something greater, something better than this
Recommended Books (and Mentioned Books)
- Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
- The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell
- Time Machine by H. G. Wells
- 1984 by George Orwell
- Brave New World by Aldous Huxley