I would argue that the overarching theme of The Island of Dr. Moreau is the line that separates human and animal and how tenuous that line truly is. Edward Prendick, our naïve and skeptical protagonist, is reticent to believe Dr. Moreau’s scientific experiments are real at first due to his conviction that man and beast are separate. He first believes that the Beast Folk are men that Moreau has “infected with some bestial taint” because they appear to be disfigured men to him (Wells 49). He can tell that they have some animalistic hint to their physiology but believes Moreau has infected them in his experiments. The language of infection and disease is featured prominently in the novel even though no one is ever infected with a biological pathogen or virus; the only illness we see depicted in Prendick’s PTSD once he returns to England. As he first explores Moreau’s island, he uses his biology background to explain what he believes is an infection used by Moreau to enslave the men that act as his servants. He knows that Moreau conducts experiments on animals and that his vivisections are what forced his exile from London, but he has yet to connect the experiments on animals to the experiments turning animals into men (Wells 23). He knows that Moreau’s initial experiments in London involved the flaying and mutilating of dogs but not of their intended purpose. At several intervals in the novel, Prendick seems close to uncovering the truth by putting the pieces together, yet he needs Moreau’s explanation in order to understand the true nature of the Beast Folk.
Once Moreau begins his explanation of his creations, we see Prendick grappling with his own conceptions of race, humanity, and scientific advancements. He can never truly admit to himself that Moreau’s creations are men but refers to them as “humanized animals- triumphs of vivisection” (Wells 52). This language reflects the language Moreau uses yet is in an aside by Prendick. Prendick knows of Moreau’s past experiments with vivisection on animals but would never consider them a triumph because he finds them obscene and horrific. As a man of biology, Prendick understands the surgeries that Moreau compares to his vivisections but not the reasoning. Moreau’s plan to create men out of animals horrifies him as both a scientist and a racist. As Timothy Christensen notes in his article, Race in The Island of Dr. Moreau, both Moreau and Prendick use a racial slur to refer to the Beast Folk (583). Christensen’s explanation for the racial slurs used by the real humans of the island is that Moreau and Prendick “place a specific beast person within a schema of evolutionary development that is taken as a ‘given’…[in] scientific knowledge” (583). Prendick and Moreau have racist perceived notions about race and humanity which manifest themselves in how they talk about the Beast Folk. Prendick spends a great deal of time pondering on what the Beast Folk are exactly and questions Montgomery, “what race are they?” (25). His desire to know is linked with his beliefs of racial superiority. Prendick equates the more animalistic of the Beast Folk with more racialized prejudices, such as the belief that because they are mere animals they are only capable of a “dull ferocity” with their “limited mental scope” (Wells 28, 60). Prendick views the Beast Folk as only slightly evolved animals, that any man could outrun and hunt. Prendick believes that they do not possess the intelligence to fight against their creator, Dr. Moreau, in a rebellion of reverse colonialism. Prendick is wrong about many things.
Your connection to the racist language and the attempt to perfect the Beast Folk genetically is very astute. The line between humanity and not is challenged throughout this book, and it’s interesting to see your focus on the genetic and racial viewpoints of it, and how that compares to say the religious aspects of the line between humanity and not. Katya, in her article, made the point that, “in order to be a human, there must be a belief in a god-figure who guides the way to righteousness with the ever-present threat of this figure somehow knowing when a being has done wrong and therefore inflicting punishment.”