Introduction
The Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and H.G. Wells’s “The Island of Dr. Moreau” (1896) address convergence of themes from possibly divergent perspectives of science-based fiction that had related significance and meaning. Frankenstein and Wells’s recognize outcomes of genetic engineering and scientific experiments that lose locus of control and result in to unexpected outcomes that add a new dimension of the body of knowledge to the literature of humanity and values of humanity and co-existence. The books identify issues on the inability to control genetic engineering and outcomes of uncontrolled genetic engineering. The books present a conflict of interest on values of humanity, humanness, and human identity.
Objectives of the essay
This essay builds on the arguments presented by Frankenstein (1818) and Wells’s (1896) and examines the mechanism science fiction has developed since the late 19th century to the present day through the development of a construct that informs on the relationship between humanity, human values and its corresponding “others” for instance extraterrestrials, robots, monsters, human versus machine or human versus animal hybrids relative to inanimate natural phenomena. The essays further identified and reports on encounters between human relationships with “others” towards shaping and modeling definitions of humanity and explore arbitrary of the categories that are employed to categorize human bodies and behavior on the foundations of race, gender, and sexuality.
The interpretative method application
The texts Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Nineteenth-Century Responses, Modern Criticism, 1818 By Mary Shelley and Wells, H. G. The Island of Doctor Moreau, 1896, Edition Mason Harris was analyzed by employing Foucault genealogical approach. Foucault genealogical approach finds application in context and textual analysis due to its capacity to provide relationship between knowledge and power that influences on identity. It also contributes into understanding of human and inhuman identity. It takes perspectives that make it possible to determine implications in different diverse ways through which identity is perceived. Foucault genealogical approach makes it possible to utilize human or inhuman knowledge and power to identify self-knowledge and mechanism it influences on identity subject to underlying objective interests. Graham (pp.25-34) however recognizes that Foucault genealogical approach has been subject to criticism because it tends to contribute into relativists interpretation of knowledge and power constructs for identity that paves way for nihilism. Foucault genealogical approach is best suited for ideological critique analysis which results into diversity of thinking dimensions as opposed to rationale of acting differently regardless of inhuman or human dimension of identity. Baldick (p.61) recognizes that Foucault genealogical approach suits application in scenario that is characterized by manipulation of knowledge and power towards developing different constructs for identity and self.
Contribution to literature on human identity
This report contributes into literature of humanity identity by identifying elements that have been used to form definition of humanity, values that define humanity and implication of the different definition of humanity to the modern literature on human identity and humanity through reflection of creation natural and artificial and symptomatic relationship with the nature of self on current community.
The foundation of Frankenstein perspectives
Frankenstein (pp.1-3) reports on definition of life as a continuous process that goes past death. Frankenstein (pp.22-48) claims human evolves from matter as documented by Darwin theory of natural selection that contributes into generation of a “spark of life”. Frankenstein (pp.6-11; pp.17-23) claims creation is not perceived or oriented towards humanity but “is structured towards creating a human companion” as claimed by Well’s (pp.1-4). Frankenstein (pp.17-20) claims if creation is structured materially human, the “outcome that manifests as human is never accepted as human but rejected “as other”. Frankenstein (pp.55-72) argues creation supports cloning debate and engineering since genetic engineering is build on cloning of cells from matter or materials. Frankenstein data (pp.25-33) posits essentiality of the vein of argument that derives foundation from objectification of human matter as independent of human which translates into loss of human rights and freedoms that should be bestowed to humans as illustrated by Wells (pp.2-6).
The concept of fear and its manifestation
Frankenstein (pp.30-32) and Wells (pp.2-5; pp.67-79) argue human and non-human characteristic is emotionally influenced by fear especially fear of the unknown. In addition, fear of the unknown has been documented by Rauch (233-234) as a powerful emotion that affects efficiency of mankind. A number of authors have indicated that mankind greatest unknown phenomenon that brings forth fear is sustained by failure to understand self (Baldick, pp.9-10). Wells book (pp.1-175) represents meditations that are structured on seeking understanding of self, source of humankind fear and understanding of identity-associated elements that predispose fear of unknown. Self-identity is important yet failure to understand self stimulates fear as demonstrated by the Bergonzi in his introduction to the Island of Dr Moreau (pp.1-7). Rauch (pp.240-4) alleges fear is manifested in form of a monster that is characterized by “uncanny human-yet-inhuman nature” that is created to represent and exhibit human characteristics. As a result, creation of a human-yet-inhuman form brings forth trouble to creator subject to artificiality and compatibility of human identity between human and inhuman. Refusal to accept self-identity results into manifestation of self-alienation
Knowledge and identity
Levine (p.28) notes that Frankenstein reflects a story that was fueled by evils of unstructured knowledge. The evil nature of the new knowledge was source of conflicts, death and destruction which resulted into Victor’s blame for the new found knowledge. Conflict in identity that occurred was fueled by material form of the monster which was indifferent from decisions and reactions to the new knowledge acquired. The blame was illustrated by a dialogue between Victor and Walton
“Learn from me…how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge” (Lipking, p.224).
A dramatic irony however is feasible in Victors blame for the acquired new knowledge as opposed to personal objectives for the creation on glory and fame hence psychologists perception that “human live alienated from their bodies, mind, fears and desires” (Huntington, p.78). Powers (p.453) claims human psyche is driven by fractured and alienated context that paves way for perception of humanity as material creatures (Moers, p.221) that are under constant external complex and uncontrollable circumstances (Harris, p.79). In addition, Mellor (pp.285-6) notes that the influence of alienation results into human evasion of ambiguities of humanness. This has impact of humanity reliance on concept of self which fuels alienation and despair in human and humanity as documented by Lipking (pp.227-8).
Concept of humanity
Hunter (pp.97-101) concrete truth on humanity is in contrast to reality in human and its relationship with “other” as documented by Wells (p.1-3). Humanity based on Dickson (pp.12-6) and Wells (pp.5-9) is structured on presence, essence, truth and reality that is different from perception of “other”. Thus, humanity forms basis and foundation for human thought, language and experiences that “other” human demonstrate. This has resulted into concept of humanity being remodeled to include focus on essentiality as a function of human-inhuman or natural-artificial relationship. As a result, meaning of humanity has evolved towards identification of instances when knowledge of self (Graham, p.60) could translate into “destruction” which predisposes alienation. The modern society however has continued to evolve subject to influence of technology, nature and what constitutes nature. The shift presented by modern-day society is perceived as “erosion of human values that influence on physical and psychological integrity of the concept of humanity which might impact negatively or positively on divine evolution that ultimately shape the dynamics of essential qualities of humanity and nature.
Perception of humanity towards humanity definition
Through reflection of humanity, human perceive own becoming alien and uncanny. As Moers (p.216) claims, the artificial nature of identity is influenced by recognition of need for emphasis on belief of destruction which is impossible to maintain because of its fragility. Human values are constantly evolving and tend to alien. This has drive attitude that human body is a form of Frankenstein monster and creature that inhabited the earth as documented by Darwin evolutionary theorem and have been undergoing evolution (Page, p.5-19). This perception is illustrated differently by Moreau through genetic engineering to create hybrids of animals which illustrated fluidity of humanity, shape of human inclusive of human form
Implication in the society and science
Frankenstein and The Island of DR Moreau (Lipking (315-7) and Dickson (pp.5-6) though differ by a period of utmost a century, they address issues on materialistic foundation of life. Qualitative content analysis (McConnell, pp.34-7) on the texts have claimed the texts have explored “entanglement of humanity in terms of flesh” subject to uncanny replication of the body, expression of diverse humanity values across space and trends towards transcendence as documented by Powers (pp.452-467), Bergonzi (pp.2-6) and Moers (pp.215-222). Lipking (pp.313-331) has documented that Frankenstein revolved on the aspect and element of romantic potency with regard to Eramus Darwin’s predictable nature while Moreau (Alkon, pp.23-4) revolved on unpredictable nature. The texts share similarity in terms of romantic materialistic foundation (Hunter, pp.11-15; Reed, pp.9-12). The romantic element (Botting (pp.35-7) and materialistic element (Graham, pp.27-31) contributed into “conflict of philosophy with regard to monster and creation. Levine (pp.212-5) reports on conflict between scientific materialism and romantic. The differences are evident in Mowers “Female Gothic” with respect to her analysis of internal world of Victor that differs from Moreau perspective.
Materialistic evolution
Materialistic evolution was evident through Darwins theory of evolution via natural selection (Page, pp.4-9). Compared to Frankenstein and Moreau (Alkon, pp.56-58) Darwin perspective on “commonness of the origin of species brought forth fear on nature of humanity, position of abhumanness and challenged teleological perspectives on humanity revolution. Perception of humanity was elevated to higher level than previously based on biological principles. Thus, monsters and human, natural or artificial were considered as separate species that could not procreate naturally through fertilization but emerged from common ancestry. Humanity as a result, cannot be separated as independent from other creation which resulted into Moreau question “how do human manage to create social order? Hunter (pp.65-6) claims social order in human was constructed and maintained by logic and reason as opposed to foundations of instincts.
The degeration concept in Moreau
Writing of Moreau took place at a time when issues on degeneration were a major debate amongst different philosophers which were based on perception that humanity has capacity to regress to a more primitive form as documented by Hunter (pp.90-3), Mellor (pp.277-8) and Philmus and Hughes (pp.23-4). Thus, humanity and human values were undergoing constant evolution whose outcomes could not be predicted.
The abstract nature of human via abhuman
Frankenstein and Moreau texts have employed a creation that borders “not-quite-human-not-quite-other” or abhuman as a reflection on position of monsters or cyborgs in the humanity development. Abhuman features as documented by Alkon (p.12) are characterized by ruined values, and modeling of humanity based on traditional construction of human and humanity values and humanity identities. Abhuman characteristics have been documented by Johnson (pp.23-28) and Coren (pp.6-15). The foundation of abhuman has been claimed to be based on psychological and philosophical integration towards revolution of humanity. The outcomes were characterized by radical destabilization of differences between human and animal. Botting (p.3) has reported that abhuman could include degenerated human values amongst Moreau beast people and Frankenstein creature.
Redefining cyborgs and monsters
Moers (p.218) claims the concept of abhuman includes creatures like cyborgs and monsters. The characteristics of cyborgs and monsters (Alkon, pp.32-5) and their values provie foundation for construction of human nature based on social perspectives. The cyborgs and monster values provide direction into which social context could be applied towards understanding abhuman as background of identifying foundation of social human dimension and mechanism it influences human values revolution. Based on Graham (pp.112-3) Cyborg satisfied Frankenstein creation definition as a living fusion build of human and non-human elements. Cyborg (p.114) further demonstrates human, mechanical, organic and fulfils border between a special creation, species and categorization of human. Cyborgs satisfied fit for the social theory than human through its diverse weather adaptations that human as illustrated by death of Victor the creator in the North Pole under extreme low temperatures from ice conditions
The human values of the cyborgs, as a product of technology or thought-of-experiment, has contributed into development of understanding of humanity, humanity identity and human values as documented by Graham (p.51; 55-56). Moers (p.65) in her feminine perspective notes that human nature extends beyond sense of essence but specifies “nature delineation of borderlines between human-non-human, and natural-artificial relationship” Levine (p.28). Moers (p.220) notes that new emerging definitions of human, humanity and associated values are not based on destructive existing qualities. This made Moers in the “Female Gothic” to argue that emerging definitions are based on identification of “fault-line of human and cyborgs and fragility of the border between human and non-human. This has resulted into new perception and emergence of plethora of meanings, significance, attitudes, new social foundations, new allegiances to creation and creator and identities on human, humanity and non-humanity. This was fundamental in illustration of differences between Frankenstein and Moreau. This however gains value from reflection of social unconsciousness and perception of cyborgs and monsters as children or progenies of creation. The fascination of human being, through has fear component, rests on need to domesticate and disempower the cyborgs or elements in non-animal that threaten mankind. In addition, Baldick (p.45-6) has shown that cyborgs have presented a human problem based on their cultural values and cultural orientation because the cyborgs through their absence or presence which has not been documented for it to be accepted as natural or human. But coren (pp.15-7) has documented that cyborgs and monsters have played a greater role in shaping human understanding of self subject on the culture of the cyborgs.
Emergence of cyborgs and monsters
Rauch (p.229) data suggests monsters are part of procreation and qualify to be “children”. Wells (pp.167-71) notes that although monsters can be pushed or hidden, they return to torment by bringing forth “better knowledge of human values place in history” (pp.172) or history of having knowledge of the place human inhabit. Harris (pp.105-8) notes that the return of monsters is born of “self knowledge” (p.106), human knowledge (p.107) and “human discourse” (p.108). The monsters seek knowledge on human perception of the world as documented by Alkon (p.41), need for “true human” toe valuate cultural assumptions and validate on “race, gender, sexuality” (Harris, pp.109-112) as well as need for human to identify “differences between “racial, gender and sexual orientation” and scope of human tolerance” on monster intrusion (Coren (p.61-3). The monsters seek to understand rationale for their creation by human as documented by Baldick (p.12) through attempts to determine why creators made them, rationale for the culture that gave way to their creation and nature of “human identity construction” that fueled the creation of the monsters.
Reflection on the concept of uncanniness
McConnell (p.28) notes that uncanniness is derived from combined familiar and unfamiliar features or what Hunter (p.79) documents as heimlich and unheimlich respectively. The familiarity and unfamiliarity based on Huntington (p.22) brings forth fright. This emerges from incapacity to comprehend “boundary between fantasy and reality” especially when confronted with reality of the imaginary phenomenon. This is illustrative that identity is constructed on distinct connection on what is known and principles that define “what values we live” (Page (p.34). a true monster is product of human or humanoid (Plimus & Hughes, p.21). the moster or artificial creation acquires “emotions of fear” if humanoid as case of Frankenstein while human fails as in Wells, H.G. monster acquires emotions of disgust and alienation as documented by Mellor, p.281). Acquisition of emotions by a monster or humanoid is primary to subversion (Lipking, p.321), inversion (Reed, p.56) or expectations (Hunter, p.95). Human as a result react negatively to what deviates from “normal expectations” hence depiction of humanity variability from humanness.
Process of self destruction and its significance
Hunter (pp.99-101) reports that self-destruction was associated with recognition of artificial nature of humanity identity. The monsters and hybrid animals in Frankenstein and Moreau respectively were a representation of self that had turned uncanny that normal human have tried to destroy without success. The self-destruction was symbolic through possible cutting of proverbial self-one hand which could have amounted into self-mutilation. Thus both artificial and natural could be said to have had mutual association and dependent on one another for survival hence artificialness identity is symbolic and its processes in life diverge from human which brings forth need for identifying what constitutes human and artificial towards determination of substantive difference in identity.
Delicacy of the evolutionary theory
The artificial (thus the monster) satisfied the Darwin’s perspetive of evolution. Nature through selection brings forth creatures that are better adapted. This agreed with Frankenstein (Hunter, pp.122) that the creature had better adaptations to extreme conditions of weather than human and could have moved at higher speeds than human. Due to lack of compatibility or to find close associate, the monster desired to have a companion “to minimize its agonizing pain of solitude” (Moers, p.217). This was partly due to abandonment of the creature by its creator Victor (Hunter, p.3-4). Evolutionary theorem as posed by Darwin resulted into Victor’s self destruction because Victor failed to define limits for labeling “others” due to failure to construct significance of artificial and natural and their existence. This observation contributed into definition of knowledge to include not “what is true or untrue” but demarcation of what power needs to achieve through “direction of purpose of knowledge”.
Regression effects and its significance
The disastrous outcomes of Victors creation has been documented to have been subject to his regression against nature and God’s intentions. This has been associated with Victor’s punishment for going against interests of God, a supreme being in creation which results into a cautionary perceptive of scientific research. The cautionary to the scientific research was structured to ensure experiments were performed within control and understanding of human. Inconsistencies in understanding were subjective to need to abide and subscribe to laws of nature hence as Meors in “Feamle gothic” notes, Victor’s death in the North Pole was form of “punishment for raping nature” (Moers, p.223). In addition, Mellor (p.283) notes that nature revenges to entities that violate its principles and intentions through destruction
The core to family destruction
Levine (pp.210-212) claims nature obstructed Frankenstein from constructing “normal human being”. Moers (pp.215-8) notes that Frankenstein work constituted unnatural method of procreation which resulted into Frankenstein failure “to construct a normal human being”. This resonates with Graham (pp.23-5) data that indicates unnatural methods of procreation result into unnatural beings” that lack qualities of normal being. The unnatural being had features like “gigantic stature, watery eyes, shriveled complexion and straight black lips” as documented by Levine (pp.26-7). Lipking (pp.314-5) claims that the physiognomy of the “unnatural being” formed basis for Frankenstein “withdrawal from his procreation”. In addition, the “hatred of the Frankenstein child” paved way for development of events that played a key role towards “destruction of Frankenstein family, friends and self” as documented by Johnson (pp.12-19; pp.46-87). Baldick (pp.22-29) claimed “destruction of Frankenstein family, friends and self” was driven by “aberration characteristic of the monster”. This formed basis for Lipking (pp.220-1) drive to determine the “degenerated state of the monster”. The monster had capacity to “do everything”. As a result, Lipking (pp.24-8) got fear-possessed emerging from “unnatural and supernatural”. God created earth and its contents in seven days but Frankenstein workmanship went past God’s, eight days which demonstrated possibility of mankind betterment of nature compared to God. The creature in Frankenstein after social interaction with human recognized its wretched and imperfect state though perceived as superior to human. The creature (Hunter, p.94) doesn’t perceive its superiority but could identify its differences with normal human.
Threats to orthodoxy and religion
Natural philosophy as alternative name for Science (Levine, pp.209-10) was part of enlightenment process. The foundation of natural philosophy during early 19th century was to identify materialistic explanations for world, origin of creation and species and need to identify essential laws of nature as documented by Graham (pp.82-85). Due to conventionalism and principles towards identity of essential laws of nature, the adopted methodologies resulted into shift of project scope to examination of principles of divine creation as opposed to examination of human body construct. This paved way for threats to orthodox and religion. Alkon (pp.25-7) documents how varieties and diversity of materialism became central focus.
Victor’s objective interests
The tragedy of procreation was not based on need for gaining new knowledge. The tragedy lay in the path that was used to gain the new knowledge. Thus, the path to gaining the new knowledge was catalyzed by objectives for acquisition of the new knowledge post attainment and foundation of reaction on the outcome of the creation thus the monster. The path towards gaining new knowledge was structured towards gain of personal glory and fame. The achievement of new knowledge as a product of glory and fame was summarized by Victor’s dialogue to Walton:
“Wealth was an inferior object; but what glory would attend the discovery, if I could banish disease from the human frame, and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!”(Coren, pp.51-76)
The creator Victor was demonstrated to be happy, enjoying glory of his creation and knowledge that had given rise to his fame that made him be gloried by family, friends and relatives for his “creation of a new species”. Based on Victor own words as quoted
“A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve their’s” (Lipking, pp.321)
Based on Lipking (p.321) it is evident that the creation was made towards creators egocentric desires to attain glory and fame.
Deficiencies in artificial creation
The deficiencies in artificial creation was brought about by inability to abide and subscribe to ownership through demonstration of allegiance
“I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me” “Rauch, p.298).
The monster didn’t demonstrate allegiance through failure to “behave like a proper creation”. The creation demonstrated cultural, moral or ethical values by recognizing its creation and mentor. The challenge lay not in the art of generating new knowledge that turned out to be destructive to friends, family and relatives. The challenge lay in managing the dangers of the creation. The outcomes of the creation resulted into rejection of moral and ethical foundation of the creation that contributed into abandonment of the creation hence loss of companionship. The relativistic interpretation was that the creator was filled with egotism and disturbed by power of his knowledge to procreate when the creator could not measure or perceive the power of procreation. The relativistic interpretation of fear of unknown could have been different if a different creature other than human had been created. Lack of benefit to the community (relatives, family and friends) provided foundation of the conflicts that form prose of the narration. It could be interpreted that Victor, the creator, made his creation for his own benefit which formed foundation for his abandoning the creation without justifiable reason hence corresponding rejection by the society Victor claimed his creation would serve.
The community considered the creation unacceptable and foreign because the foundation of creation was based on personal gains as opposed to community benefits. It could be concluded that Victor had objective of increasing his knowledge at the expense of the community moral and ethical interests which resulted into unacceptability of his project. The foreignness of the monster as documented by Johnson (pp.102-5) belonged to species of knowledge that had not been contextualized (Moers, pp.216-8) though the primary objective was targeted at seeking treatment for human death and diseases. The experiment went astray from key objectives of Victor by failing to add value to community but instead causing death and destruction that provided foundation for Victor’s failure to recognize mechanism his new knowledge could add to community service. This was based on fear of unknown.
Foundation for rejecting creation
Levine (p.25) and Hunter (p.2-3) illustrates Victor’s desire was to design a creation that has resemblance of human through human values and human identity expression. The evil of knowledge of Victor (Rauch, p.241) was magnified by “exalted imagination towards “ability to give life to an animal” and assigned the creature a human label. The creator, Victor, had developed identification with the creature before it breathed as his offspring which gave foundation of parent’s child idealization. The creature inspired fear and awe which finally sustained his remorse and rejection of his own creation. This further resonated with God rejection of man Adam post sinning although the backgrounds were different as settings. Rejection was fueled by narcissism as opposed to humanitarian foundation subject to gigantic shape of the offspring as documented by Hunter (p.9). This resulted into Shelly’s rejection of the purposes of knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge itself and responsibilities attached to the acquired knowledge.
Reality and its psychological foundation
Following victors observation of outcome of its creation (Hunter, pp.50-51), his reaction were characterized by psychological fear of failing to accept the results. Victor attempts to escape to sleep was both psychological and symbolic. God rested after his creation was complete. Upon his awakening from psychological and symbolic sleep, Victor was frightened and ran out as documented by Lipking (p.223) thus
“I escaped, and rushed and rushed down the stairs” (Lipking, p.52).
Narcissistic identification of Victor and Victor creation was responsible for fear subject to horror of facing reality as documented by Levine, p.216). This could translate into conclusion that life has physical foundation which is not attached to metaphysical or transcendent foundations. The psychological fear and fright were based on material body that could conduct human processes namely move, think and acquire language but the altruism had a different foundation towards the creation
“His words had a strange effect upon me. I compassionated him, and sometimes felt a wish to console him; but when I looked upon him, when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened, and my feelings were altered to those of horror and hatred” (Botting, p.99).
The reflection of the physique of the creature meant normal human might have had similar traits as the creature portrayed.
The legacy of thoughts
The evil of knowledge was destroyed subject to altruism. Thus, the sake of normal human contributed into desires to banish thoughts structured towards new creation as illustrated by Victor’s dialogue:
“I had resolved in my own mind, that to create another like the fiend I had first made would be an act of the basest and most atrocious selfishness; and I banished from my mind every thought that could lead to a different conclusion” (Hunter, p.118).
It could be perceived that thoughts that could contribute into a different alternative conclusion, irrespective of its outcomes contribute into alternative use of acquired knowledge.
Thin difference between natural and artificial
Relativistic interpretation of Frankenstein and Moreau in that the Frankenstein, unlike Moreau, the creation had resemblance of natural human being as documented by Powers (p.460) that “the creature was naturally good”. The goodness of natural being in the Frankenstein creature however changed post contact with human being and learning development of the creature. This illustrates the disadvantages that emerged post acquisition of new cultures and new knowledge. Artificial cyborgs or monsters ought to retain their culture without gaining knowledge on human culture. As a result, the dangers in Frankenstein were subject to social interaction between the human and non-human. Shelly in Hunter (p.29) indicates human and non-human relationship was fueled by desire for companionship that was innately characterized. As a result mankind demonstrates “element of solitude” as documented by Alkon (p.35) which is foundation of mankind natural state and also laid foundation for mankind criticism of the unnatural as foreign hence corresponding rejection. In Frankenstein, as documented by Hunter (Frankenstein 1818), the creation rot he creature began life as a normal animal, demonstrating traits of animal which were observed through its physical desires. The creature could never have understood what “death represented or meant or significance of death” without social interaction with human. As a result, the primitive state of the creature could have remained its solitary state as documented by Powers, p.453).
Significance of awakening of the artificial to the natural
Mellor (pp.276-9) claims there was significance in the awakening of the monster. In addition, Mellor (p.277) notes that awakening was associated with dissemination of new knowledge that had been let uncontrolled in the world. The knowledge was unstructured and was not ordered which differs from Wells “The Island of DR Moreau” in the ordered and controlled knowledge of the creation. This signifies resemblance of lack of order in the monster’s behavior (pp.280-3). The monster was pure and like a child, new nothing. The society as a result of lack of interaction had not spoiled his nature. The monster had qualities of natural man in his childhood “through satisfaction of hunger under oak tree”, “his quench of thirst in streams” and “slept under the oak tree” where it fed (p.281-2). The awakening was illustrative of natural characteristics of a natural being. The creature as documented by Hunter (p.78) could have passion to express itself in its own mode but “uncouth and inarticulate” silenced it through development of fright and fear. The creature had desires to express itself in its own language that was independent from its immediate surrounding language of birds and animals but failed to get common creature like itself to share language. Language that Mellor (p.276) identifies with “cry of nature” was absent in the creation of Victor towards seeking help in times of danger or intense suffering as documented by Graham (p.41) and Moers (p.66).
Adaptiveness of artificial over natural
The artificial creation was more adapted to different weather conditions than natural man. Victor, the creator of the monster, died in pursuit of the monster when he was exposed to harsh climatic conditions of North Pole. The “glaciers, storms and freezing temperatures provide a limitless source of terror for almost any mortal” (Moers, p.219) which meant the monster was exception. The relativistic interpretation of death of the creator as opposed to the creation provided basis that nature is equally good and equally bad through its capacity to contain both healing which have been expressed by Frankenstein and the monster at different parts of the text. This is different perspectives given that in Wells (The Island of DR Moreau), the artificialness is controlled by society suggestions which meant the creation of the monster in “The Island of DR Moreau” was driven by society benefits as opposed to Frankenstein that were based on achievement of personal glory and fame.
Conclusion
The relativistic interpretation identified conflicts and dilemmas of knowledge and its various significance and mechanism it shapes human and humanity. The convergence of Frankenstein and Wells on inability to from pure forms of human is based on continuity of challenges on established conventions on human identity. The shift in traditional foundations of identity, nature and technological evolution have eroded and preserved elements of humanity while at the same time validating maintained distinctions. Shelly writes from background of human essentialization while wells adopts post-Darwin stance that essentializes on the animal yet both efforts to create human have had disastrous outcomes. It is possible to conclude that binary elements namely natural-artificial and man-animal are symbolic and interdependent for survival.
References
Alkon, Paul. Science Fiction Before 1900: Imagination Discovers Technology. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein ‘s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Bergonzi, Bernard, ed. “Introduction.” H.G. Wells: A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1976. 1-7.
Botting, Fred. Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1991.
Coren, Michael. The Invisible Man: The Life and Liberties of H.G. Wells. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd., 1993.
Dickson, Lovat. H.G. Wells: His Turbulent Life and Times. New York: Atheneum, 1969.
Graham, Elaine. Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Harris, Mason. “Vivisection, the Culture of Science, and Intellectual Uncertainty in The Island of Dr. Moreau.” Gothic Studies 4.2 (2002): 99-116.
Hunter, Paul, ed. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Nineteenth-Century Responses, Modern Criticism. 1818. By Mary Shelley.New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
Huntington, John. The Logic of Fantasy: H.G. Wells and Science Fiction. New York: Columbia University press, 1982.
Johnson, Diane. Introduction. Frankenstein. By Shelley. 1818. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
Levine, George. “Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism.” Hunter 208-214.62.
Levine, George. “The Ambiguous Heritage of Frankenstein.” Lowe-Evans: 25-38.
Lipking, Lawrence. “Frankenstein, the True Story; or Rousseau Judges Jean-Jacques.” Hunter 313-331.
McConnell, Frank. The Science Fiction of H.G. Wells. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Mellor, Anne. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Hunter 274-286.
Moers, Ellen. “Female Gothic: The Monster’s Mother.” Hunter 214-224.
Page, Michael. “The Darwin Before Darwin: Erasmus Darwin, Visionary Science, and Romantic Poetry.” Papers on Language & Literature 41.2 (2005).
Philmus, Robert and Hughes, David, eds. H.G. Wells: Early Writings in Science and Science Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Powers, Richard. “Rousseau’s ‘Useless Science:’ Dilemma of Paradox?” French Historical Studies 2(4), (1962): 450-469.
Rauch, Alan. “The Monstrous Body of Knowledge in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism 34.2 (1995): 227-253.
Reed, John. The Natural History of H.G. Wells. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1982.
Wells, H. G. The Island of Doctor Moreau. 1896. Ed. Mason Harris. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2009.