The island of Doctor Moreau

Te pica un mosquito Tigre y te rascas con saña. No es bueno hacerlo pero da gustillo un rato. Es un dolor gustoso, pero un dolor al fin y al cabo. Este libro es igual. Eso es bueno? Lo empecé y me fuí "rascando" mientras lo escuchaba.

Por algunas alusiones que hace deduzco que el autor leyó sobre un caso famoso que me interesa desde hace años. Un hombre llamado Phineas Gage acabó con una barra que le cruzó la cabeza y llegó a varios metros de distancia. Con el agujero de entrada y salida (y pérdida de masa cerebral) sobrevivió 12 años y originó avances en el estudio del funcionamiento del cerebro y el comportamiento humano (mirar San Google si os interesa el tema y hay documentales muy buenos también).

Un náufrago llega a una isla donde un doctor realiza experimentos espeluznantes con animales. En el Dr. Moreau ni siquiera veo el intento de aparentar que busca curar enfermedades o mejorar la calidad de vida de seres humanos (o animales). Veo a un hombre convencido de su propia superioridad moral e intelectual sobre todos los demás. Considera que los animales sienten dolor físico porque son inferiores, débiles, inútiles. Es un megalómano, cree que es Dios y esa Isla es su Mundo, su creación. Ya dije que es una lectura incómoda, donde no salvaría a nadie (de los humanos). En varias ocasiones los animales parecen atrapados en una secta, manipulados mentalmente todos los días de su vida. Las descripciones de los experimentos son tan frías y creíbles que resultan muy inquietantes. Wells sabía lo que hacía, imagino que por sus propios estudios (era doctor en biología). le preocupaba la dirección hacia la que iba la Humanidad (ya se veía en "La Máquina del tiempo") y la Ciencia. No parecía muy optimista sobre nuestro futuro, diría que era un visionario. Si conociendo los famosos experimentos del Dr Mengele, el uso de armas químicas, la bomba atómica, la clonación... aún resulta incómodo leer este libro no acabo de hacerme la idea de lo que sería cuando se publicó. Es una lectura muy recomendable, seguiré rascándome y buscaré otra más relajante.

Books like this are difficult for me to review. Normally, my criteria is “did I enjoy reading it? Did it bring me pleasure? Would I want to read it again?”. But with classics, things are different, in that one does not necessary pick them up because they are particularly fun, but rather, because of their contribution to the literature and fiction in general. These books are what put the foundation to the tropes we all know and recognize.

If it was a contemporary book, I probably wouldn't be interested in reading it. Still, as far as classics go, it is very fast-paced and readable, with no unnecessary digressions, irrelevant side characters and long depictions of pastoral nature. It is very much a kind of pulpy action.

The characters themselves are fairly 2-dimensional, and don't have much more to them than “the generic protagonist”, “the mad scientist” and “the alcoholic”. Not that they need to.

It is still a good exploration of the ethics of scientific work. Not that there was much exploration in this case. “Torturing animals and dumping them with callous disregard for what would happen to them is baaaad” is pretty much the only point seriously presented, so it was a fairly black and white issue. More interesting is the way the book discusses what does it mean to be human and what separates us from animals in the first place.

What makes a book a classic? Does it have to be literary? Does it require a handle on aesthetic? Does it have to avoid being "mere escapism"?

I take a somewhat cynical view of what qualifies a work of literature as a "classic". Usually, it must pass the test of time and it must be influential or inspire generations of writers. In a sense, a book becomes a classic by winning a cosmic popularity contest, insuring that it is held up as an example to be followed.

H.G. Wells tends not to be literary. He has little to no handle on aesthetic. His work does tend to be escapist literature. Then again, these qualities define most classics: you usually can not pass the test of time without being popular. H.G. Wells has much more in common with Michael Crichton than Thomas Pynchon. Which means that, though Wells certainly may have a purpose or message in his writing, his primary goal is to entertain. If he tricks you into learning something, all the better. This serves Wells, for a lot of his "scientific ideas" are out-dated or simply fantastic. However, because his principle aims are to provide an exciting story and perhaps reflect on human nature reacting to his plots, the accuracy of his science is unimportant. His fictions will continue to have vivid life even if the scientific ideas he propounds have fallen into the obscurity of irrelevancy.

Like Jurassic Park, very few people care that the cloning science is preposterous. The science is a means to get the story started, and not the story itself.

The Island of Dr. Moreau deals with the manipulation of biological life. Can we change the nature of a living organism? Are behaviours determined by natural characterization or culture? How close are we, civilized humans, to the savage beasts? Is seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge good in of itself, or does there need to be an aim for a good application? The Island of Dr. Moreau provides an environment for these questions but no easy answers.

Perhaps the reader could conclude that "playing God is bad", but I think Wells is a bit more sophisticated then that. The tortuous techniques used by Dr. Moreau, though undesirable, are never stated to be absolutely evil. Prendrick, our narrator, seems much more concerned that vivisection is not applied to humans (particularly himself) than the amount of pain it inflicts on the animal subject. It is ultimately left up to the reader to make the moral judgement if there is one to be made.

The Island of Dr. Moreau is first and foremost an adventure story in which Prendrick finds himself on an island, discovers the experiments of Dr. Moreau, and eventually escapes. Because its main focus is to be this sort of story, it has avoided the pitfalls of needing to remain "topically relevant" and "scientifically accurate", becoming a classic because it was able to engage generations of readers on the merits of its story alone. Some say this story anticipates genetic engineering, I say quit reading too much into it and enjoy it for what it is.

I was extremely surprised at how much I liked this book. Other reviews say it better than I do, so I'll just throw in my recommendation.