There are many different monsters on this messed up island of Moreau’s. There are the monsters that he created but then there is him as well. Dr. Moreau is an unethical and immoral monster because of the way he treated the animals while trying to give them human like properties, the way he plays god with his creations by creating monstrous creatures, and his lack of responsibility for his non beneficial creations. The way that he changes these animals to their human like form is some of the most disturbing content I have ever read. He talks about how he has to hypnotize them and program these laws into their heads to make sure that they do not go back to their animal instincts. He cuts pieces of their skin off from different parts of their …show more content…
He makes these creatures that take time “‘The mental structure is even less determinate than the bodily. In our growing science of hypnotism we find the promise of a possibility of replacing the old inherited fixed ideas’”(54) and a steady hand “‘You have heard, perhaps, of a common surgical operation resorted to in cases where the nose has been destroyed. A flap of skin is cut from the forehead, turned down on the nose, and heals in the new position’”(52). But he does not take responsibility for their actions “‘The fact is, after I had made a number of human creatures I made a thing---’ (...) ‘It was killed.’ (...)It killed several other things that it caught. We chased it for a couple of days. It only got loose by accident--I never meant it to get away”(58), he doesn’t realize what exactly he is doing by creating these creatures. He is giving them human smarts, the capability to think, to problem solve. They are not so simple minded animals as much after you change their brain chemistry, and the only thing that he does in order to teach them a lesson he sends them to the house of pain “‘Back to the House of Pain, the House of Pain, the House of Pain!’”(72). All that this god has done is let many lives get ruined by his actions (Montgomery:)”It’s a chance, I tell you. As everything is in a man’s life. Only the asses won’t see it. Why am I here now--an outcast from civilization--instead of being a happy man enjoying all the pleasures of London? SImply because--eleven years ago--I lost my head for ten minutes on a foggy night’”(11), proved that no matter what he did to make the creatures stay human, it would never work “They will change, they are sure to change”(90), and played with fate “Then I am a religious man, Perndick, as every sane man must be. It may be I fancy I have seen more of the ways of this world’s Maker than you--for I have sought
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that very imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
...powerful; therefore, everything is a result of God allowing it to happen. Yet, how could a loving father allow disease to harm his children. Satan views man as unintelligent to believe the way he does about God. “He equips the Creator with every trait that goes to the making of a fiend, and then arrives at the conclusion that a fiend and a father are the same thing” (347).
The telling of this story provokes many questions. Why didn’t God, being all-good and benevolent, "immediately restore His fallen creatures to their original union with...
In the first chapter of God Behaving Badly, David Lamb argues that God is unfairly given a bad reputation. He claims these negative perceptions are fueled by pop culture and lead many to believe the lie that the God of the Old Testament is angry, sexist, racist, violent, legalistic, rigid, and distant. These negative perceptions, in turn, affect our faith. Ultimately, Lamb seeks to demonstrate that historical context disproves the presumptuous aforementioned. In addition, he defends his position by citing patterns of descriptions that characterize God throughout the Old Testament. “Our image of God will directly affect how we either pursue or avoid God. If we believe that the God of the Old Testament is really harsh, unfair and cruel, we won’t want anything to do with him” (Lamb 22). Clearly, they way Christians choose to see God will shape their relationship with Him.
The question of why bad things happen to good people has perplexed and angered humans throughout history. The most common remedy to ease the confusion is to discover the inflicter of the undeserved suffering and direct the anger at them: the horror felt about the Holocaust can be re-directed in the short term by transforming Adolf Hitler into Lucifer and vilifying him, and, in the long term, can be used as a healing device when it is turned into education to assure that such an atrocity is never repeated. What, however, can be done with the distasteful emotions felt about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Surely the citizens of those two cities did not themselves directly provoke the government of the United States to deserve the horror of a nuclear attack. Can it be doubted that their sufferings were undeserved and should cause deep sorrow, regret, and anger? Yet for the citizens of the United States to confront these emotions they must also confront the failings of their own government. A similar problem is found in two works of literature, Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound and the book of Job found in the Tanakh. In each of these works a good man is seen to be suffering at the hand of his god; Prometheus is chained to a rock by Zeus who then sends an eagle to daily eat Prometheus' liver while Job is made destitute and brought to endure physical pain through an agreement between God~ and Satan. To examine the travails of these two men is to discover two vastly different concepts of the relationship between god and man.
The myths which prove the contradictory behavior of the gods, acting as both benefactors and tormentors of man, can readily be explained when viewed in light of the prime directive for man, to worship the gods and not “overstep,” and the ensuing “Deus ex Mahina” which served to coerce man to fulfill his destiny as evidenced by the myths: “Pandora,” “Arachne, and “Odysseus.” Humankind and it’s range of vision over the gods beauty and power portrayed them to be benefactors but unseemingly it depicted their affliction towards humans.
He tells Walton that, “You hate me, but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself” (275). Although no amount of regret or sorrow can bring back the people that he has killed, the creature does acknowledge the evil of his actions, which in turn allow him to come to peace.
‘Are you sure?’ asked the Savage. ‘Are you quite sure that the Edmund in that pneumatic chair hasn’t been just as heavily punished as the Edmund who’s wounded and bleeding to death? The gods are just. Haven’t they used his pleasant vices as an instrument to degrade him?’
feelings, he lets those that he loves die, and abandons his own creation. Even the creature couldn’t have committed
Like a child longs for a mother’s love, the monster longs for the love of his creator. When the monster was first created, Victor says that the monster looked at him “while a grin wrinkled his cheeks.” The monster looks at Victor with love and instead of receiving love in return, he receives complete rejection. The monster cannot understand why his own creator does not love him like God loved Adam. The monster believes he should be like Adam but is “rather the fallen angel.” God made man in his own image and loved Adam even with his flaws. Yet, victor made “a monster so hideous that [Victor] turned from [his creation] in disgust.” This rejection from Victor makes the monster angry and
In the novel, Frankenstein, a doctor named Victor Frankenstein created a monster. Victor’s monster was created using old human parts, chemicals, and a “spark.” Victor wanted to create this monster in order to benefit mankind, and for the purpose of playing God. Victor thought his creation would turn out great, but in all actuality, his monster ended up terribly wrong (Shelley, 145). The monster was a deformed man, standing eight feet tall, with yellow eyes, black hair, black lips, and skin that did not conceal his internal features (Shelley, 144-145). Even though the monster was very grown, he had the mind of a newborn child, and he was very kind and gentle (Shelley, 327). The monster’s appearance terrified Victor, and he immediately abandoned it. Dr. Victor Frankenstein also never named his creation because he disliked it that much. The monster was longing for love, and since no one loved him, he became very violent. He ended up killing Victor’s brother and best friend out of pure revenge (Shelley, 193). Anytime the monster tried to help people, he was bea...
This thirst for this knowledge was something that would not be quenched until it was completed. He acknowledges the consequences of the amount of time saying ¨The summer months passed while i was thus engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit¨ (Shelly). It was this investment of time that causes all of his family to worry and he didn 't seem to care at the moment since he was so invested in this project of his. This causes his loss of innocence because he goes so far to reach and attain this power to create life, he even goes as far as digging up graves to get the required parts to finish this beast. Much like Satans arrogance and thirst for knowledge in Paradise Lost. He wants to mess up everything for God, so he sets out for Eve and her emotions ¨His words replete with guile into her heart too easy entrance won¨ (Milton 9.733-4). This guile or craft is much like Victors creation, it is a distraction from the real world to feed his curiosity, like Satans curiosity of Eves emotions, but losing their innocence in return. On the other hand, the Monsters loss of innocence comes from the knowledge literature has to offer. The book that strikes him the most is, you guessed it, Paradise Lost by Milton. He tries to relate what he has read to his identity saying that he is like Adam, being created by someone, but cursed like Satan saying he ¨was the fitter emblem of my condition¨
""The Art of Cruelty"" The New York Times Book Review, 31 July 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
higher level of intellect the creation had knowing exactly what he was doing directly hurt
He knows he could be good and that he was meant to be good, but instead like Satan he was thrown out of his own society and into his own personal hell. The creature wants to be like Adam and he kind of relates to him, but due to how he has been treated he says, “Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with, and acquire knowledge from, beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (chapter 15) .The creature wants to be a part of society and contribute, but “Everywhere [he sees] bliss, from which [he is] alone irrevocably excluded” (69). The creature does not understand why he is so hated he says, “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou are bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (68). He is alone but he does not want to be he wants to be included; he wants to be normal like everyone else. He goes as far as helping old man De Lacey, Felix and Agatha. De Lacey the blind man is the only person who treats the creature with respect and treats him as if he was human. This occurs because he is blind he doesn’t see the horrific face he judges the creature solely on personality. This shows us how judgmental and how wrong individuals can be about a person if they form and opinion based on looks