Pretending to be something that doesn’t exist

There are plenty of obvious similarities between Moreau and Frankenstein.

- Both are both pushing the bounds of science.

- Both are doing so with no apparent reason why, with no philosophical thoughts.

- Both are pushing merely to see how far they can push, asking only if they can and never whether they should.

But one of the differences that I found most interesting is that Frankenstein was actually creating life. Moreau was not creating anything, merely altering existing life. In this vision, Man has been demoted, along with God. On Moreau’s island the Law (the clear proxy for religion) is merely a man made concept. Since the world envisioned by Wells is one where God is not real, it stands to reason that a man pretending to be God would have no real, lasting authority. He cannot create; he can only alter that which nature has created. And even these alterations will not last. Nature cannot be tamed.  

Frankenstein is largely an argument to live within nature’s predetermined boundaries. Don’t take on experiments and create things that you don’t understand and can’t control. Don’t venture to places you don’t belong, like the North Pole, in search of fleeting fame and glory. Respect nature and it will respect you. Nurture it and it will nurture you.

The Island of Dr. Moreau represents a view that has discovered the harsher side of nature. It is a view that has studied the hard laws of where nature will take you and has recoiled in fear.

Pendrick fancies himself as a modern man, a man who understands and sympathizes with modern science even if he himself is not on the cutting edge. He does not understand why vivisecting animals is anything to be ashamed of, though he understands that those who are uneducated have to be placated (at least until their ignorance can be corrected). But when he starts to believe that Moreau is vivisecting humans, his conscience revolts. He clearly is at peace with the general idea of evolution and has no love for religion, yet when he sees humanity actually being blended into animals, he is appalled. This conflict is clearly a common one at the time. As new scientific theories are appearing to shoot down the old institutions and moral codes, many people were confused and concerned about what would take their place.

I do know that in later years Wells was a big fan of the power of governments to enforce these moral codes and provide meaning to people’s lives; the more expansive and coercive the government, the better. I’m not sure how far along he was along this path of reasoning when he wrote this. I can see some germs of this thinking, such as Pendrick coming to the conclusion that ‘nonsense’ like the Law was necessary for the superior (himself) to keep control over the savages. But it seems too easy to draw too many such conclusions.