In light of the Annotation Assignment, I would like to first explain what I understood from Otis’s essay. She believes that the works produced by Collins and Wells are akin to tools used to “retry” David Ferrier, a famous physiologist who utilized vivisection in his research. In 1881, he was put on trial for the misuse of two primate in his experiments. Both Collins and Wells wrote novels in opposition with Ferrier (in Well’s case, more indifference), and Otis shows how they went about this.
I would say the part of the paper that I connected to most was when Otis stated that “[a]lmost no one has ever thought that Heart and Science is a good novel. Valerie Pedlar, who has also pointed to Ferrer’s work as a source, has pronounced it ‘an unashamed piece of polemic cast in fictional form.’ As the preface indicates, it was written to prove a point rather than to tell a story” (37). I found this line to be hysterical and maybe unfair, and I would ask Otis who is on trial here. I also enjoyed when Otis recounts Benjulia’s remark that he does not care for dogs because they bark, as if they would save him from being labeled a vivisectionist.
For a question, I suppose I would ask Otis why she chose to compare Heart and Science to The Island of Dr. Moreau. It seemed to me that both were anti-vivisection propaganda, with the former being more extreme than the later. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to find a piece of literature that is pro-vivisection, to show the other side of the trial rather than persecute Ferrier further?
And I would challenge Otis when she says that the two novels used “offer critiques of science far more complex and insightful than those of Ferrier’s prosecutors” (28). I believe that the works are more complex given that they are presenting a theme from a speculative place, presenting a possible world where vivisection goes unchecked, but the arguments made against Ferrier and vivisection that Otis gives are just as insightful and complex. They simply come in a different form.
Lastly, I admired how Otis presented the paper. It allowed a reader unknowing of Ferrier, his trial, vivisection, or the literature to follow to understand why there was vivisection, what the possible good was, what the concrete bad was, who was in opposition, and what the results of the opposition came to be.
Drew, this post gives great insight! As someone who is also pre-med, I read Otis’ essay through a similar lens. When she quoted Valerie Pedlar on “nobody thinking it was a good novel,” I has the same reaction as you. When I realized that the book was really just to get back at a vivisectionist, my entire view changed. How do you believe that Collins’s views influenced the perspective of the book? I believe that the light that Dr. Bejulla was portrayed in was how he thought of Dr. Ferrier. Do you think this as well?
When you asked “Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to find a piece of literature that is pro-vivisection, to show the other side of the trial rather than persecute Ferrier further?” I agreed completely. Seeing the contrast between the two pieces and comparing the diction would have been much more riveting.
Drew, A quick thought about the relationship between the legal prosecution and the literary ones: Otis is saying that the novels were more critical (and “insightful”) than the arguments offered by the prosecution, which lost its case against Ferrier. You might connect this to Murphy’s discussion of the relationship between the scientific community and the officials regulating them, or the legislators framing the law, where it seems prominent scientists had a lot of input into what the law would look like and into which researchers would be granted licenses. You might also double check the Broadview appendices for some of those articles written in support of vivisection . As to whether there’s a pro-vivisection novel, I don’t know, but you could find out…