From Goodreads
The Island of Doctor Moreau
H.G. Wells
I really enjoy this book. I thought I had read it when I was a kid, but now I'm not so sure. It's pretty dark in places and it paints a bleak portrait of humanity. Maybe I read an abridged version or one aimed at children. The idea of reverting to nature takes on an intriguing twist in this book.
The ethical considerations of science have evolved and grown past the crude vivisectionist ideas of Moreau since Wells wrote but the increasing complexity of it all only drives the question to become more difficult to answer. At what point does science become crueler than its outcome? Is this question, in its utilitarianism even a valid way of ethical judgment?
The other way of looking at this book, and more interesting to me, is the ideas of humanity and what it means to be a man that the book grapples with. At what point does something gain ontological equality with oneself? Moreau is undoubtedly the villain, but are Montgomery's acts of kindness, or his inner struggle enough to redeem him? Is Prendick's revulsion a good or a bad trait? Were any of the creatures decidedly evil, or simply fated to their natures?
No comments:
Post a Comment