The ruling of a nation, with the possibility of tyranny, exists as a symbiotic relationship (especially if the ruler possesses no heir). H.G. Wells’ The Island of Doctor Moreau presents the reality of an isolated kingdom, or perhaps twisted theocracy is a better term, that ultimately reverts to a primal state with the death of its leader Dr. Moreau. While Montgomery dies shortly after, but not before exposing the Beast People to alcohol, the remaining man Edward Prendick is not capable of assuming the “throne” of the island. However, he does offer up a new doctrine that temporarily restores a false humanity that eventually fades as the animals revert to their true natures. In chapter XXI during an exchange with the Dog-man Prendick there appears an interesting association of the narrator with the native inhabitants. “That Other who walked in the Sea is as we are.” (126) [1]The question then is: Is Pendrick a beast, are we all beasts, and if so is that why he is not able to maintain the humanity of the island? Thus the death of Moreau signals the end of a world, similar to how Queen Victoria’s death triggered the beginnings of the decline of the British Empire.
In The Longman Anthology of British Literature by David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar comes a passage focusing on the relationship of a ruler and their country, analyzing the power and restraints of Queen Victoria. In the passage entitled “Victoria and the Victorians” a newspaper clipping published at the time of her death in 1901 writes that “Few of us, perhaps, have realized till now how large a part she had in the life of everyone of us; how the thread of her life [bound] the warp of the nation’s progress.” (1050) If we as readers think of the island as the British Empire, then what other similarities can we find? Prendick returns to England and lives out his days with the constant fear of every human around him regressing to a bestial form, and while he would not approve of this, we must connect the two “empires” as much as possible for they are eerily similar.
The treatment of women in particular links the island and Britain, especially on the grounds of equal rights and reproductive abilities. Despite facing many hardships throughout her life due to her gender, Victoria was not a fan of “this mad, wicked folly of Woman’s Rights.” (1051) Women were also subjected to the duty to “soothe the savage beast her husband might become as he fought in the jungle of free trade.” (1061) The pink sloth, which I believe to be female, enacts this role by occasionally jolting Prendick awake, causing him to be hyper aware and remember his situation. It tests his humanity and patience, eventually slinking back to the trees. The women are also given a wild repulsiveness (for example the escaped puma, which can be seen as the “New Woman” in an abusive society, constantly in conflict with the queen and sexism).
Doctor Moreau also has problems with reproduction and the role of “females” as was the case, like the queen. Despite having nine children Victoria was also not fond of pregnancy, childbirth, and babies. (1051) Montgomery relates this to Prendick in Chapter XV, “they actually bore offspring, but that these generally died. When they lived, Moreau took them and stamped the human form upon them.” (84) Not only does this speak to the low mortality rates of the lower class, but to the contradictory nature of both the British and Moreau. It is the idea of improving by dehumanizing. As with the missions to spread Christianity into areas like “Darkest Africa” Moreau attempts to create humanity by performing actions that we (and his fellow Victorians) deem inhumane. The narrative of both the British Empire and Dr. Moreau is one of subjugation all in the name of a greater good, the effects of which are still in existence and as a curse prompt us to see the beast in everyone.
[1] I foolishly purchased a different edition by mistake (the only difference is that the font is bigger), and while the pages are only off by a small amount I decided to include the chapter numbers as well.
I like how you’re thinking about Prendick as a ruler unable to fully assume the throne, or to uphold Moreau’s social order and restore humanity to the island. Your analysis is especially significant in the face of Prendick’s reversion to beast status; I’m wondering what anxieties his behavior reveals about the weakening or possible dissolution of the British monarchy.
I also really like your readings of the female “characters” in the novel, the sloth-like creature and the puma. I agree especially that the puma does represent the New Woman, especially since she is the one to attack Moreau and upset the social order of the island. I’m wondering how the Dog-man fits into this analysis; is his role to provide a sort of bestial patriarchal support to Prendick as he tries and fails to uphold Moreau’s society?
Splendid analysis and I found it very interesting that you equated the puma and the sloth as female characters. This was something I had not previously thought of however, now when I reader I see that it is very clear that they are. I find it so interesting that Queen Victoria was not a fan of female rights with the quote you included from the reading. It is such a baffling paradox coming from a female ruler who had such an impact upon a nation that she literally had within the palm of her hand. I wonder if Prendrick’s anxieties towards the end of the book stem from an underlying fear of the fact that Queen Victoria, a woman, lead the nation whose society includes beastial individuals. Was it a direct fault of hers? Was she a poor leader unable to “soothe” the beastly men within her society as Prendick is aware of?
Your statement behind your idea of “improving while dehumanizing” is provocative especially within the essence that it is through “performative acts” of improving while dehumanizing which suggests that these acts are something that can be stopped simply by refusing to “perform” the act of trying to improve others. Performative is also interesting to me because it is something that is surreal and only a falsified display therefore the truth of humanity is elsewhere but where?
If we want to look at Moreau’s island as the Victorian Empire, then we also need to consider the role that missions played in this time period. It’s a terrible and manipulative process, forcing the people of colonized areas to convert to the “pure and proper” religion of Christianity in order to receive help (which wasn’t that much). There is also the fear of alcohol as the downfall of society, which gives rise to the temperance movements and prohibition periods. When Montgomery shares his alcohol with the Beast People they start to go wild and revert back to their old state, playing right into the fears of many Victorians.
I remember talking about Moreau as Victoria in our groups last week, and it’s still a very interesting idea as you present it here. As for the association of Prendick with the beast-men, I think there’s another possible interpretation of Prendick’s being “as we are” – that the animals, or at least the Dog-man, consider themselves human enough to be compared to Prendick. Is this something they’ve picked up from Moreau? From their own observations of human behavior? Or is it just the Dog-man, who continually attempts to affiliate himself with Prendick? Your citing of this line definitely made me think about it!