Kara Ireland
Dr. Benedict
ENGL 2174
October 21, 2019
The Evolution of Prejudice Through Language
Within H. G. Wells’ novel, The Island of Dr. Moreau, I posit that there are various means of prejudices and language is the most effective way to enforce them. The constituent aspects of humanity are questioned, and Wells produces interesting discourse about what separates man from animal and the prejudices surrounding the latter. The narration by Edward Prendick, the protagonist, can be used to explore how powerful language is as an agent for the process of disenfranchisement and dehumanization. There are also compelling contradictions within the narrative that demonstrate how rhetoric has the ability to both empower and disempower those at the end of its address. Prendick’s unflattering descriptors, the inconsistency of his narrative, and his prolonged exposure to the creatures all contribute to the evolution of his language throughout the text. Although his sentiments towards the creatures shift, his coarse language persists, and it has an unintended effect in the narrative of their understanding. The unintended consequence is that Prendick’s language, in some ways, justifies or reinforces the separation of those beings from humanity even as he validates them as such.
It has been observed through the protagonist that his means of classifications in the text are indicative of his own perceptions. Edward Prendick is the narrator and he is the lens through which the reader interprets the events. This account of events becomes convoluted when scrutinizing the function of certain phrases and the limits of his lexicon. Prendick has a contradictory stance in his reasoning of the creatures he repeatedly deems “beasts” and “brutes” (Wells 6,13). While in some instances, he claims they are “animal-men,” he later dismantles the notion by subsequently referring to them as beasts once more (Wells 39). This incongruity of language subjects itself to the consideration that one, or both, of his aforementioned dispositions are flawed. Prendick challenges his beliefs by his own tongue, and it is fair to say that one cannot be disposed to believe both marked classifications of man and beast are simultaneous or true. To be a beast and to be a man are thought to be mutually exclusive, but as the narrative evolves, so does the complexity of Prendick’s language.
Prendick makes several attempts to define the parameters of humanity. By his own merit, he asserts that “they talk, build houses, cook ... they were men” with conviction, but he also confidently states later that he “felt all too keenly that they were still brutes” (Wells 50,63). His evaluations prove to have no merit when he continuously objects his own conclusions. Prendick reaches the fleeting conclusion that “he was a man ... for he could talk,” and highlights its peculiarity by including “the English accent was strangely good” (Wells 39,42). His inconsistency reveals itself in his conflated observation of “seeing there in a perfectly animal attitude ... and its imperfectly human face ... [he] realised again the fact of its humanity” (Wells 72). Prendick continuously lulls between the validation of these vivisected beings as humans or beasts.
An evolutional shift of language took place in The Island of Dr. Moreau in which Prendick begins to use beast as a fond term to describe the creatures. Prendick’s various use of beast has been malleable within the novel, as it eventually is used to both validate and disparage the creatures. Descriptors like “the most hideous degradation” suggest more to do with Prendick’s attitude towards them rather than merely their physical appearances; it is supplied under the guise of reactive repulsion, but Prendick’s disgust is also attributed to his intrinsic view of the creatures (Wells 37). Including the detail that “a grotesque ugliness was an invariable character of these islanders” brings Prendick’s perception into question, because he states his opinions as though they were fact (Wells 27).
Prendick’s language eventually lends itself towards human classifications rather than detached observations of the islanders. As he spends more time on the island, his exposure to the creatures elevates his disposition. The most emotional distance between himself and the creatures is when he uncertainly calls one of them “The Thing” (Wells 30). Wells’ choice to capitalize “The Thing” is the first instance in which Prendick attributes a semblance of a name to them (Wells 30). It is interesting to note how the first contextual instance of “beast” is equated to disgust; however, beast later takes a transitive turn (Wells 6). Beast later gets attached to the words men and people. Prendick has undergone some internal shift that disposes him to believe the beasts are now “Beast People,” likely because he had “insensibly [become] a little habituated to the idea of them” (Wells 39,63).
The emotional attachment is marked by Prendick’s perception that the creatures were now in victimhood, calling them “animalised victims” (Wells 38). Increased exposure to the islanders disposed Prendick to establish some empathy, which eventually led him to a validation that spurred the rest of their relationship. Shortly thereafter, Prendick’s phrasing evolves into “Beast Men” (Wells 39). Wells similarly made the choice to capitalize the phrase, granting it a name and classification. Prendick’s dichotomy of classification ventures to further separate the creatures into some form of races, evidenced in his use of the “Ape Man” and the “Swine Woman” (Wells 120). Men and women are recognized as human classifications, whereas the alternative is male or female. This further betrays Prendick’s tendency to evaluate them on a human scale, but still retain his prejudices by maintaining the notion that they are Beast People.
Despite the inconsistencies of his internal associations, his language illuminates his true sentiment. With scrutiny towards themes or words that are repeated throughout the text, Prendick’s use of “grotesque” became an item of interest; grotesque was used as a descriptor for the vivisected beings 16 times (Wells 6). Prendick never relinquishes his comfortability in deeming them beasts, however; while grotesque appears a mere 16 times, beast appears 131 times. The frequency of this term, rarely appearing in a positive context, suggests how Prendick truly views the creatures of the island. Prendick poses the question, “was it a beast, or was it a man,” but most consistently conforms to the former (Wells 35). Although Prendick sometimes humanizes the creatures in other positive phrases, such as the instance in which he argued “they were animals ... humanised animals,” he remains steadfast in his alternative reasoning that they were of a lower tier (Wells 52). Prendick affirms himself that “superficially the contagion of [those] brute men was upon [him], but deep down within [him] laughter and disgust struggled together” (Wells 43). That admission solidifies his struggle with his own prejudices. Despite his assertions of the contrary, he maintains that they were little more than “monsters manufactured” (Wells 53).
An uncomfortable cognitive dissonance presents itself in Prendick as he strives to validate the same beings he is disparaging. Wells has fabricated a character that demonstrates how language can be swayed to suggest alternative meanings, and this phenomenon exists in everyday life. Specific instances of diction have the ability to construe an entirely different meaning than what might have been originally intended. This aggression in language is evidenced in our current political climate, such as the rhetoric surrounding immigrants or homosexuals. The charged language in regard to these groups work to further marginalize and isolate them. Wells is capitalizing on a subtle, but highly effective method of writing and speech that demonstrates how language influences perception. Moreover, it demonstrates how if left unchecked, slight alterations of phrases often do not detract from the adverse sentiment one holds. One can find consistency in prejudices despite fluidity in language, and Wells has captured this conundrum well.
Works Cited
Wells, H. G. The Island of Dr. Moreau: Unabridged. Dover Publications, 1996.