1

Heart of Darkness related to The Island of Dr. Moreau

Exterminate all the brutes, perhaps the most famous line in Conrads Heart of
Darkness, finds an interesting parallel in the line, I meant to kill this brute--the most
formidable of any left now upon the island, of H.G. Wells, The Island of Dr Moreau. As
one examines these two works more closely, it becomes apparent that there are many
such parallels in Mr. Prendicks encounter with the mysterious Island of an exiled
scientist and Marlows journey into the dark places of the world. By examining these
similarities along with other evidence presented in each of the two pieces both Joseph
Conrad and H.G. Wells understandings of empire are made apparent.
One of the most striking similarities between the two works is the structure of
the story and the narrative styles in which they are written. Both stories, when
simplified, have precisely the same plot line. Each tells the tale of a man of man who
finds himself, one way or another, in one of the dark places of the earth (Conrad 3)
and becomes intrigued by a certain figure in the story. In Heart of Darkness, the narrator
Marlow hears rumors that a very important station was in jeopardy, and its chief, Mr.
Kurtz, was ill, and soon enough becomes very interested in just who Mr. Kurtz is and
what he has been doing at his station (Conrad 19). Likewise, on arriving to the Island,
Prendick recalls that Moreau is a famous scientist but remains unaware of what exactly
he is doing with the mysterious Island for the first portion of the account. Finally,
catastrophe ensues and the main characters escape with their lives but are not left
unchanged by their experience.
2


Both works are first-person narratives, and this allows the authors to express
emotions and views about social or political issues. An omniscient narrator would not be
able to offer a point of view which could convey nearly as much regarding background
tensions and connotations. Another advantage of narrating in the first-person form is
that, although the authors would have received considerably less if any criticism to
calling the natives as savages or brutes during the time period when the two books
were published, having a character make a racist comment or refer to a preacher
gibber*ing+ Big Thinks even as the Ape Man had done, instead of having an omniscient
narrator state such things allows the author to distance himself from anything that
would be inappropriate to say outright (Wells 103). In fact the author can additionally
distance himself from some radical ideas by voicing them through a character and
subsequently have the narrator disapprove of the ideas or shed a negative opinion on
the character as a whole. For example, Wells distances himself from more radical
descriptions of the possibilities of vivisection by presenting them to the reader through
the mouth of Dr. Moreau; Wells does however, make a formal statement at the end of
the book giving merit to such possibilities of vivisection. Additionally, it is of note that
Heart of Darkness has a narrative-framework involving a different setting and speaker
than Marlow (who narrates the rest of the story) which give an additional touch of
perspective to the story. For instance, the setting for the framework is in London and
this fact allows Marlow to make the remark that it also has been one of the dark places
of the earth, allowing the listeners or readers to realize that at one point in time
London, at the heart of modern civilization, was once one of the dark places on the map
3


to conquering empires such as Rome, and its people, considered savages (Conrad 3).
Wells and Conrad also use different characters as tools to convey multiple
viewpoints, especially regarding issues of empire. Interesting enough, Conrad uses Mr.
Kurtz to present a several different views on empire; Kurtz pamphlet:
began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had
arrived at, must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of
supernatural beings--we approach them with the might as of a deity, and so on.
By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically
unbounded It *continued and+ gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled
by an august Benevolence. (Conrad 45)
Here, Kurtz is full of energy and shows a sincere belief that he can cultivate and
communicate with natives for the betterment of all. Conrad uses Kurtz to show what he
views as the honorable intentions that some had regarding imperialism and the good an
empire could theoretically accomplish. However, the terrifying postscript he leaves on
the pamphlet: Exterminate all the brutes, reflects that something went awry with
Kurtzs plan, and ultimately a belief, probably closer to Conrads understanding of
imperialism, that empire was destined to fail in successful relations with colonized
peoples (Conrad 46). Conrad considered himself to be a victim of imperialism and,
seeing the problems caused in Poland when it was under the rule of the Russian Empire,
might have believed that similar results could only be expected elsewhere. Conrad also
uses the character of Kurtz as an example of imperial scarring or blowback, which will
be discussed later.
4


Like Kurtz, Dr. Moreau is ripe with genius ideas of how he can change, teach, and
improve upon things (specifically animals) with a chance of ultimately positively
impacting society. As such, Dr. Moreau plays an analogous role to Kurtz in his ability to
reveal Wells views on imperialism in the book. Even though the natives on his island are
of his own creation, Moreau still uses the idea of self-deification to impose control over
them, but unlike Kurtz, who at firsts stands for the ideal of benevolent imperialism,
Moreau advocates a strict separation from the natives and imposes a harsh code of
law upon them that forces them to act against their animal instincts. Moreaus
vivisection experiments aimed at combining and improving animals and the law forcing
these creatures away from their animal instincts parallel the imperial policies that
many invading forces followed regarding native populations: to try and correct to
corrupt ways of the natives and make them into a civilized people. The passage,
Before they had been beasts, their instincts fitly adapted to their surroundings and
happy as living things can be. Now they stumbled in the shackles of humanity, living in a
fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not understand, does well to highlight
both the problems with Moreaus experimentation and with this particular aspect of
empire (Wells 74).
Mr. Prendick and Marlow, very obviously show similitude in their role as the
narrators as discussed earlier. As such, they both play the primary voice of the each
authors criticism of empire. Our vision of mistreated savages, of imperial blowback,
even of the other characters is seen through the lens of the narrators dialogue.
Consequently they are also the main characters in the work and are essential to our
5


understanding of the authors view of empire.
A central theme in both Heart of Darkness and The Island of Dr. Moreau is the
idea that there are areas of the world, blank spaces on the map as it were, places that
dont operate like the rest of the world. As Marlow begins his account of his journey into
the heart of darkness, he reflects upon his youthful desires for the glories for
exploration. He continues At that time there were many blank spaces on the earth,
and when I saw one that looked particularly inviting on a map (but they all look that) I
would put my finger on it and say, When I grow up I will go there, (Conrad p.5).
Equally, in The Island of Dr. Moreau we find the story largely set on a mysterious Island
off the track to anywhere (Wells p.19).
In many works of the same genre written a few decades earlier, authors often
expressed anxiety that the ease of life in Victorian England was causing men to become
soft, and saw these mysterious, new frontiers as an opportunity to experience
adventure, peril, and to re-establish their manhood. There are sentiments in Conrads
work to this effect. For example, Marlows youthful desire to explore in combination
with his later address to the listeners, You cant understand. How could you?--with
solid pavement under your feet, surrounded by kind neighbors ready to cheer you or fall
on you, stepping delicately between the butcher and the policeman, in the holy terror of
scandal, (Conrad 44) can be seen to reflect upon the ignorant ease of life surrounded
by modern comforts and the possibility for achieving something greater by seeking out
adventure in foreign lands. However, this is not the theme expressed in the work as a
whole and is almost non-existent in The Island of Dr. Moreau.
6


Instead the works both express a theme of imperial blowback, or scarring from
encounters with the imperial frontiers. So, instead of expressing the belief that the
imperial frontier provides an important opportunity to regain a once-lost grandeur and
courage as authors including Rider Haggard suggested, Wells and Conrad imply that
sending people out to the imperial frontier may not be a good thing; that the quest of
expanding the imperial frontier may be backfiring and scarring the individuals who
would seek to benefit from it. In The Island of Dr. Moreau, Prendick is never able to
re-assimilate with the rest of English society after his experience on the island. He finds
himself paranoid, seeing images of the Beast People in all aspects of European life, as if
he has lost the ability to draw the line between humans and animals. However this
change in mindset can also be seen insightful is some ways. For in reality, humans do in
fact have animal qualities that Prendick becomes able to pick up on because he actually
feel*s+ as though the animal was surging up through them (Wells 103).
Similarly, Mr. Kurtz is a serious victim of the imperial blowback. He went out to
the frontier supposedly seeking riches so that he could gain acceptance to marry his
love; he had brilliant ideas of using the help of native peoples in ways that did not
oppress them, and in the end, his quest robbed him of all his strength, laid him on his
death bed, and left him thinking The horror! The horror! (Conrad 64) Again in Conrad
as in Wells, there is also a sense that although the encounter with the frontier was not a
good one, that it did provide some sort of enlightenment, or greater understanding of
the world. As Marlow remembers his experience in the heart of darkness (his farthest
point of navigation up the treacherous river) he recounts, It seemed somehow to
7


throw a kind of light on everything about meand into my thoughts.(Conrad 5) So it is
clear that Wells and Conrad grant that there is some experience to be had on the
frontier, that a broader view of the world can be obtained, that something can be
learned, but at the same time their works pose the question at what cost? Neither
author denies the possible merits of a benevolent imperialistic force, but both also
recognize the actual realities of experience on the imperial frontier may not always
justify chasing that ideal.
Another common theme of the two classic stories is the theme of the good
native. The image of a good or loyal native is often used in Fiction of Empire to show
how the native[s] likes or works well with the Europeans in order to justify imperialism
with the argument that since the natives like the people of the conquering empire and
help out, then it is right that the imperial force should be there. In Heart of Darkness the
strongest image of the good native appears when Marlow considers the death of his
native helmsman:
Perhaps you will think it passing strange this regret for a savage who was no
more account than a grain of sand in a black Sahara. Well, dont you see, he had
done something, he had steered He steered for meI had to look after him, I
worried about his deficiencies, and thus a subtle bond had been created, of
which I only became aware when it was suddenly broken. (Conrad 46)
The Island of Dr. Moreau presents several examples of good natives, success stories of
Dr. Moreaus experiments so to speak, among which the most prominent examples are
Montgomerys companion Mling, and the Dog Man. Despite being introduced to
8


possible carnal temptations, Mling never betrays the humans in the story and ends up
dying defending against an attack from other beasts, and once Prendick found himself
alone on the island with the beasts his friend the Dog Man scarcely dared to leave *his+
side. (Wells 95)
Given all these similarities, it cannot be possible for Wells and Conrads to differ
drastically in their perception of empire. By examining the contents of these two works
however, we find that their understanding of empire does differ slightly from one
another. Conrad gives empire credit where credit is due, but overall is very opposed to
all the harsh realities of it and finds it to be largely an unproductive venture. He admits
that the trading company he is working for in the realm of empire paid the native
workers on the boat with regularity worthy of a large and honorable trading company,
(Conrad 37) and he also recognizes the good intentions that went along with expansion
of the imperial frontier and men like Kurtz: for each station *to+ be like a beacon on the
road towards better things, a center for trade of course, but also for humanizing,
improving, instructing.(Conrad 29) In contrast, he is appalled by some of other
expeditions whose desire was to tear treasure out of the bowels of the landwith no
more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a
safe.(Conrad 27) Largely, Conrad is opposed to empire in general, because despite its
merits and good intentions, he recognizes that the reality of empire often resulted in
the poor treatment of natives, little or no progress, and imperial blowback. He paints a
horrific image of this reality in Marlows of the first station where he recalls seeing holes
being dug and manual labor executed with a purpose impossible to divine while
9


natives lay dying in mass from starvation and the heat of the hot sun.
In Wells work, The Island of Dr. Moreau, the subject of empire is not dealt with
as directly as it is in Heart of Darkness. However, by interpreting ambiguous parts of the
story using basic background knowledge of H.G. Wells, his understanding of empire
becomes evident. In many ways, Wells uses Moreaus explanation of his improvements
upon animals as an argument for the continued practice of vivisection, being very
interested in the subject himself. Nevertheless, Moreaus potential to do good with his
power to create and to mold things into what he feels best is also an attractive concept
to Wells when transferred to the principle of empire. Wells believed that empire (such
great power) could potentially be a great vehicle to use science and organization for the
betterment of all mankind. In this way, Wells is a bigger supporter of imperialism than
Conrad. Still, the book is largely a criticism of empire which depicts the ultimate failure
of Moreaus imperialistic rule over the Beast People. Prendicks original impression, that
Moreau after animalizing these men, had infected their dwarfed brains with a kind of
deification of himself, reflects Wells criticism of empire for cruelly enslaving other
people. (Wells 43) Much of the rest of the work serves to criticism the problem of
decolonization and the violence of rebellions as well as the difficulties in westernizing
native peoples. So while Wells is attracted to the idea of empire, he heavily criticizes
how the reality of it is executed and as a result, has ambivalent feelings toward the
subject.
Many of the parallels in the two works come as no surprise. Granted Conrad was
Polish by birth, both he and H.G Wells came to prominence as authors as subjects of the
10


British Empire. Originally published only 6 years apart (The Island of Dr. Moreau-1896;
Heart of Darkness-1902), both pieces of literature express similar themes, many having
to do with the notion of imperialism or other underlying political and sociological issues
near of importance near the turn of the twentieth century. Both authors heavily criticize
imperialism but ultimately H.G. Wells understanding of empire is slightly more
ambivalent than Joseph Conrads, who as a victim of Russian imperialism heavily
opposes empire despite its few advantages.

11


Works Cited
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Dover ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1990.
Print.
Wells, H.G. The Island of Dr. Moreau. Dover ed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,
1996. Print.