“And so from the prohibition of these acts of folly, on to the prohibition of what I thought were the maddest, most impossible and most indecent things one could well imagine. A kind of rhythmic fervor fell on all of us ; we gabbled and swayed faster and faster, repeating this amazing law. Superficially the contagion of these brute men was upon me, but deep down within me laughter and disgust struggled together” (p. 43).
This passage, in the chapter entitled “The Sayers of the Law” in H. G. Wells’s The Island of Dr. Moreau, follows Prendick’s first introduction to “the Law” of Moreau’s creatures. Upon hearing parts of their recitations, Prendick concludes that they are “acts of folly… the maddest, most impossible and most indecent things one could imagine.” By judging their rules so quickly, Prendick distances himself from the situation and proclaims the inferiority of Moreau’s creatures. Prendick exacerbates the supposed differences between himself and the creatures through dehumanizing language. He denotes that the “contagion of these brute men” infects him, characterizing the creatures as diseases that impair his being. Even as he labels them as contagious diseases, Prendick gives no agency to the creatures. They are not human enough to have infected him, but their “contagion” spread on its own course “upon [Prendick].” His description of his warring reactions, “laughter and disgust,” further degrade the creatures to being worthy of two equally humiliating responses. By repeatedly shaming Moreau’s creatures, Prendick places himself on a pedestal above them.
The second sentence of the passage, however, provides opposition to this placement. Rather than separating himself from the creatures, Prendick notes that “[a] kind of rhythmic fervor fell on all of [them]; [they] gabbled and swayed faster and faster, repeating this amazing law.” The indication that Prendick himself also falls under the spell of the “rhythmic fervor” and recites the Law with Moreau’s creatures, participating in their most revered ceremony, acts as a sort of induction into their group. The word “gabbled” itself acts as an equalizer between Prendick and the creatures because it gives the impression of madness and unintelligible noises. It seems that Prendick attempts to counter this inclusion by claiming that “[s]uperficially the contagion of these brute men was upon [him].” That is, the fervor affecting Prendick is only surface-level and is caused by the disease of the creatures. He, however, calls the creatures “brute men” in this phrase, highlighting that he feels some sort of connection to them, as he could just as well call them monsters. Prendick’s induction and mutual awe of the “amazing law” illustrates that he and the creatures are more similar than Prendick realizes.
Prendick’s struggle between relating to and separating himself from the creatures relates to views of the lower class by wealthy individuals during the fin de siècle. According to Sally Ledger and Roger Luckhurst’s “Introduction: Reading the ‘Fin de Siècle,” the “often unsympathetic accounts of working-class city dwellers fueled existing fears of degeneration” (xvi). In terms of the selected passage from The Island of Dr. Moreau, Prendick is akin to the wealthy upper class individuals who saw the lower class as degenerates that were dangerous to the English race. Dr. Moreau’s creatures would take the place of the lower class, misunderstood people who were looked down upon, as Prendick degrades the creatures, and feared, again as Prendick does. The “laughter and disgust” Prendick describes as “[struggling] together” within him are similar opinions some wealthy, upper class individuals would have towards the poverty-stricken lower class they were unable to understand, yet innately similar to.
You make an interesting connection between the actions of Prendick and those of the English upper class. What I found particularly interesting is your pointing out Prendick’s push-and-pull feeling towards the beast folk. He mocks them and demeans them, as you say, because he believes he is better than they are. It is also possible that there is a particular longing on Prendick’s behalf that triggers his animosity. The beast men, like the English lower class, have certain freedoms unavailable to their counterparts. While it is unlikely that an upper class individual would want to be a despot on the street, there were a great deal more social rules that fell upon the shoulders of the upper class. Prendick may have realized that within the society of beast men was a freedom of expression unacceptable in the world of Moreau.
Great analysis! Prendick’s subconscious connection to the “brute men” during the recitation of the law and your greater connection to social class makes me wonder if Prendick is a metaphorical wealthy individual who is actually more similar to the lower class than his pride allows him to believe. To connect this to the end of the book when Prendick cannot help but see animal qualities in people in London: If this is an allegory, does Prendick’s constant view of animal qualities in London suggest that the wealthy encompass many of the same traits as the lower class?
In your blog, you compare Prendick’s conflicting language on the topic of the creatures to the English Upper Class. I think this is particularly interesting because of the way you describe Prendick’s conflicting feelings towards the creatures. From finding them to be a disease to falling in with their customs, his actions seem to conflict with his thoughts. I was really interested with the question of whether or not this point argues that Prendick isn’t so different from the creatures afterall. If you draw it back to the end of the novel, Prendick is beginning to close him off like the creatures, do you argue that Prendick, like the upper class, was never as different from the creatures (lower class) as he might have thought?
This close reading gets at a very important contrast we see throughout the novel between Prendick distancing himself from the creatures (by seeing himself as superior) and Prendick relating to the creatures (by seeing human qualities within them). I definitely agree with your argument that the struggle we see here with Prendick distancing himself/relating to the creatures relates to the view that wealthy individuals had of the lower class during the fin de siècle. This post made me think of a sentence from the post Animalia vs Humanity: “By placing Moreau’s experimental creatures somewhere between English prestige and Animalia, Wells asserts that it would be impossible for animals or anyone of different backgrounds to be capable of success in the way it was stereotypically defined by white, high-class Englishmen.” I believe that the claims made in the Animalia vs Humanity post about how the creatures fit into humanity give an explanation for why Prendick is experiencing the contrast that you dissect in your post.
I also thought the fact that Prendick joined in the repetition of the law was interesting. It seemed possible to me that Prendick’s willingness to join in the ritual could be an attempt to blend in, make himself seem like one of them. This could function in the metaphor for Victorian society as the attempts of the upper class to ease those lower than them into a false sense of camaraderie, despite their belief that they are superior. This scene could also demonstrate the strong compulsion to conform to the behavior of those around you that is ingrained in society.