Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but his is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapor, a drop of water is enough to kill him, but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this.
—Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)—Pensees (Thoughts)
It is madness to pretend to know where we are headed.
—F. R. Spellman
Reality Ends Here
In our college level science classes and elsewhere, we have asked our students a number of questions including the following:
What do you think of science?
Where do you think the practice of science is taking us?
In the grand scheme of things, is science important or not?
Does science have any place in our modern world?
It may surprise you to know that the answers we usually get from the students are stock answers—answers we sort of expect to get. Nothing we classify as double D answers; that is, nothing Disturbing or Distressing—just the same old thing. “Science is important.” “Science is taking us to a better lifestyle.” “Yes, science is important.” “Science definitely is important in the modern world.”
We have learned that when you ask safe questions, you usually get safe answers.
The problem is we hardly ever ask safe questions. Educators have to ask, have a duty to ask—the questions that solicit thought, something which is not always safe.
So, let us demonstrate what we mean. We came up with what we think (what we know) is an unsafe question to ask—and the answers usually catch us off-guard (even though we have heard these replies so often).
“What does science do for you, personally?”
There is always some young, bright student who gives that singular reply that is later chorused by all: “Science helps me escape, man!”
Years ago when we first heard this reply we were dumbfounded. Then we asked, “Escape? Escape from what?”
“From reality . . . from life . . . from the humdrum, from the &$%!!*%#% stuff that surrounds us every minute of every day.”
We remember one time a young woman took up the discourse and stated, “I take 15 course hours per semester, work two part-time jobs, and have three kids (one of which is a husband) to take care of. Science allows me to get away from it all . . . to chill out . . . to blow things up in the lab . . . ha, ha, safely, of course . . . to get real with myself.”
After a few seconds of absorbing this astonishing account, we asked the obvious question: “Well, how does science do that for you . . . what kind of science are you talking about?”
“Star Trek!”
“Star Wars!”
“Mission to Mars!”
“The Walking Dead!”
“Matrix Reloaded!”
“Minority Report!”
Wow! You could have knocked us over with Obi-Wan Kenobi’s lightsaber. And that constant Dupont refrain that we grew up with, “Better Living Through Chemistry” faded from our memories. Upon recovering, we immediately set out to remind our students that science fiction is not science. However, this was no easy undertaking. Sure, they readily admit that science gave them the laptop computer, smartphone, PlayStation 3, and The Beatles: Rock Band. And, grudgingly, they admit that science had something to do with the discovery of electricity, atomic energy, telephones, and great medical discoveries, but that is about all.
Because of comments from students like the ones related above, we have spent several years trying to determine just where young people of today get such ideas. So, in the end we simply did what scientists always do when there is a question to be answered: We did research. In the next section we share with you what our research revealed. Frankly, we learned a lot and were surprised to find out what we did. This is a clear example of the students teaching the teachers. But before we begin the next section of enlightenment, we can’t resist pointing out a few phrases that keep popping up in our minds:
Sergeant Joe Friday: “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Sherlock Holmes: “It’s elementary, my dear Watson.”
Darth Vader: “Luke, I am your father.”
Humphrey Bogart: “Play it again, Sam.”
Before we return to the madness that can be (is) reality there is that one phrase that continues to echo in resonance and continues to haunt us, even to this day, at this very moment:
“Beam us up, Scotty!”
Chronology of Madness
As scientists we (the authors) are natural born skeptics (we tell ourselves this daily); however, after years of research, we are convinced that the current distorted view of what science is, what science is about, and what impact science has on all of our lives, emanates primarily from popular culture sources. From literature to the movies, to novels to television series, to cartoons to video games, to music to toys, to audio drama and even to opera, popular culture has ingrained in many of us our views, good or bad, of what science really is. Literature, film, and television are extremely powerful cultural media sources that can be very damaging to the overall perception of what science is and what science is all about.
The thing we have always loved about research is that in finding one answer we discover several other questions that need to be answered. Thus, our research is ongoing—a work in progress—and we hope it never ends, thank you very much! We only hope that we are able to find answers to our endless supply of questions.
Anyway, along with enjoying tales about those long extinct dinosaurs, we have also discovered that people enjoy tales about madness. Almost any form of madness will do, but especially tales about the exploits of fictional mad scientists. That is, the public is fascinated by the mad things that mad people do in their complete and utter madness—so long as it does not affect them (the public), of course. They are also fascinated with the madness involved in such things as real-life mad scientists and their cruelty and evil, the same kind of cruelty and evil displayed by the Roman gladiators in the Coliseum, killing all those unarmed folks and outnumbered animals. This is also the same kind of cruelty and evil seen in bullfighting in which the poor bull does not stand a chance; and in dog fights where the winner wins by killing his or her opponent, or the losing dog is killed by its owner. The owner simply kills the dog that does not fight or does not fight to expectations.
In light of this fascination with madness, we have listed and detailed many of the cultural vehicles available in popular culture that have bent or distorted the understanding of science; what it is really about. First, however, we must define the main term: “Mad Scientist.” Simply, what is a mad scientist? To answer this we reviewed our notes taken over the years from various college level courses we have taught and were able to fashion a composite sketch of our former students’ characterizations of what a mad scientist is; that is, their stereotype of a mad scientist.
Mad Scientist Defined
The mad scientist is always an eccentric, bumbling, totally insane male, who is elderly, has crooked teeth, pale skin, and is very skinny. He has Einstein-like messy hair, always wears a lab coat and spectacles or goggles, and always stands or sits in some type of dramatic pose as if he were God—and never ever smiles in humor but only in utter, total madness.
One thing is certain—it should never be assumed that every person is able to sort fact from fiction. We have found a healthy number of young people out there in la-la land who still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and RoboCop. Thus, it is not all that unusual to find people who read fiction and believe every word that they read. Some of the classic tales from literature of evil and madness have contributed to this paradigm. Also, keep in mind that our fascination with the unknown, the spectacular, the unexplained, the imagined, the dreamed is nothing new to humans. Consider the following, for example: “A credulous (gullible) mind . . . finds most delight in believing strange things, and the stranger they are the easier they pass with him; but never regards those that are plain and feasible, for every man can believe such” (Samuel Butler, Characters [1667]).
Literature and the Mad Scientists
Example 1
I beheld the wretch—the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demonical corpse to which I had so miserably given life.
—Victor Frankenstein (1818) In Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein
Victor Frankenstein, fictional mad scientist without peer, set the stage for the public’s classic but distorted view of what science is all about.
Example 2
It was not an issue to him until after the marriage, which he suddenly sees as sexual: now vaguely portrayed, now lost, now stealing forth again, and glimmering to-and-fro with every pulse of emotion.
—Aylmer (1843) In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark”
The scientist Aylmer, while not exactly mad, is certainly overconfident. In his pursuit of perfection, he successfully removes his wife’s birthmark. However, his meddling with Mother Nature soon results in his wife’s death.
Example 3
In medieval Padua, a naturalist performs botanical and toxicological experiments on his own daughter. A young student of medicine observes the beautiful daughter and falls in love with her. The daughter is confined to the lush and locked gardens in which experiments involving poisonous plants take place. Having fallen in love, the young student ignores warnings and sneaks into the forbidden garden to meet his lover, and begins to suffer the consequences of the encounter with the plants—and with the daughter, who dwells among them and has been rendered both immune to their effects and poisonous to others. In the end, the daughter dies after being given an antidote by her young student lover. (Nathaniel Hawthorne [1844] Rappaccini’s Daughter In Mosses from an Old Manse [1901]).
Example 4
A quirky clockmaker-artist becomes obsessed with bringing beauty to life—in the form of perpetual motion. The clockmaker is a slight and delicate man, sensitive and creative (ah! Recall our mad scientist definition). He is in love with a beautiful woman, but his chances of winning her pale in comparison to those of the strapping local blacksmith. When the blacksmith marries the beauty, the clockmaker is disappointed, plunging himself deep into his unique artistic mission: his goal is to bring a lovely object to life. After many long and difficult hours of work, the clockmaker completes his project—a wondrous mechanical butterfly, a thing of fragile beauty with amazingly lifelike movements. He gives the present as a delayed wedding present to the blacksmith and the beauty. As it changes hand from giver to receiver, the butterfly provokes many reactions, and eventually ends up in the hands of the blacksmith and his wife’s son. The actions of the clockmaker-artist are thought mad by the townspeople. (Nathaniel Hawthorne [1844] The Artist of the Beautiful).
Example 5
He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn’t specify the point. He’s an extraordinary-looking man, and yet I really can name nothing out of the way. No, sir; I can make no hand of it; I can’t describe him. And it’s not want of memory, for I declare I can see him this moment.
—Robert Louis Stevenson (1886) The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (see figure 4.1)
Figure 4.1 Dr. Jekyll morphing to Mr. Hyde. Illustration by F. R. Spellman and Kathern Welsh.
This classic tale portrays the essentially humane experimenter (Dr. Jekyll) driven to madness (Mr. Hyde) and suicide by the nature of his science. Again, this well-read classic set the stage for many readers to look into a world of science that is certainly far from the norm.
Example 6
The Drums of Jeopardy: This novel introduced a mad-scientist character named “Boris Karlov,” a name which was later taken as a screen name by the actor Boris Karloff (William Henry Pratt). (Harold McGrath [1920] The Drums of Jeopardy)
Example 7
Fatal Eggs: This story is about a brilliant scientist whose experiments with life spiral terribly out of control. The scientist, quite by chance, discovers a new form of light ray whose effect, when directed at living cells, is to accelerate growth in primitive organisms. However, when this ray is shone on the wrong batch of eggs, the scientist finds himself both the unwilling creator of giant hybrids of snakes and crocodiles, and the focus of a merciless press campaign. In a panic, a mob ends up killing the scientist as the hybrid reptiles take over the city. (Mikhail Bulgakov [1924] The Fatal Eggs).
Example 8
A prominent scientist transplants human testicles and glands into a stray dog in protest of the 1920s Russian mindset that held out the promise of sexual rejuvenation through surgical transplantation of monkey glands. (Mikhail Bulgakov [1925] The Heart of a Dog).
Movies and the Mad Scientist
The movies have given us some classic examples of scientific madmen at their worst, including those well-known to us from literature, and others such as Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Jack the Ripper (he may have been a medical doctor; he knew something of human anatomy), the Wolf Man or Werewolf [in many a distant village, there exists the Legend of the Werewolf or Wolf Man (see figure 4.2), a legend of a strange mortal man with the hair and fangs of an unearthly beast . . . his howl . . . a dirge of death . . . often referred to as a night monster, prowling, killing, terrifying a country side, with the blood lust of a savage beast (Taglines, 2017); [today, some would equate this monster with Big Foot, however, we are not aware of any of his or her bloodlust adventures], and several others. We have now listed some primary characters in selected movies that might not be well known to you, but are included here because their message that science can lead to madness—and madness to science, is clearly portrayed by many of the protagonists.
Figure 4.2 Wolf Man. Illustration by F. R. Spellman and Kathern Welsh.
Example 1
Dr. Mabuse (1920)—from films made about him by Fritz Lang. Dr. Mabuse’s intent is to destroy the world—and then rule the ashes.
Example 2
Dr. James Rukh—in the 1936 film The Invisible Ray. Dr. Rukh (played by Boris Karloff) discovers a radioactive ray that cures blindness but causes him to develop a murderous paranoid rage against other scientists, whom he accuses of stealing his discovery.
Example 3
Dr. Thorkel—in the 1940 film Dr. Cyclops. Dr. Thorkel (played by Albert Dekker) shrinks opponents (other scientists and anyone else who gets in the way) of his unorthodox experimentation with radium.
Example 4
Dr. Strangelove—the 1964 film that satirized the nuclear scare.
Example 5
Dr. Eldon Tyrell—in the 1982 film Blade Runner. The bladerunner (played by Harrison Ford) has to track down and terminate four replicants who hijacked a ship in space and have returned to earth seeking their maker.
Example 6
Dr. Paul Hooliston—in the 1976 film Embryo. Dr. Paul Hooliston (Rock Hudson) experiments on a female embryo taken from a pregnant teen suicide victim. He raises the embryo to a full grown woman within a matter of a few days. They become lovers, but the woman is wholly amoral and when the drugs begin causing side-effects, she starts to kill to preserve herself.
Example 7
Dr. No from the James Bond series of films—in the 1962 film, Dr. No uses his brilliance in atomic energy to get revenge on the Western world by disrupting rocket launches from Cape Canaveral.
Example 8
Dr. Gediman—in the 1997 film Alien Resurrection two hundred years after her death, a woman is revived as a powerful human/alien hybrid clone who must continue her war against aliens.
Example 9
Dr. Rush—the female scientist in the 2007 film Black Sheep. Dr. Rush turns cuddly creatures (sheep) into killer zombies.
Television and the Mad Scientist
Television has been an excellent media outlet for showing off the benefits of science and the hard but rewarding work of scientists. Networks such as Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Discovery Health, Weird Science, the Science Channel, and others have been instrumental in broadcasting shows that have been primarily positive toward science and its accomplishments. This is not to say that the mad scientist movies listed above have not been shown on television, because they have—some, many times over. In addition, television has also presented several made for television movies and series in which mad scientists run amok and trash the planet, or destroy living, breathing things. Following is a list of a few of TV’s better known mad scientists.
Example 1
Dr. Necros—in the 2009 TV series Aaron Stone, Dr. Necros (Gr: death) is a mad scientist who specializes in creating dangerous serums and toxin.
Example 2
Dr. Miguelito Quixote Loveless—in the 1960s TV series The Wild Wild West, he is the brilliant (but insane) villain dwarf mad scientist, and the arch-enemy of Secret Service agents James West and Artemus Gordon.
Example 3
Dr. Arik Soong—geneticist from Star Trek: Enterprise. A criminal mastermind.
Example 4
Dr. Julia Hoffman—from Dark Shadows (1991). She was a blood specialist and psychologist who attempted to treat Barnabas for his vampirism with a medical experiment. She later became an ally and confidante for Barnabas.
Example 5
Elizabeth—from Wicked Science (2004). She is an unpopular high school student who is hit by a unique magnetic pulse that changes her into a genius. She revels in her new power and wants to dominate the school. She demonstrates that she will go to any length to get what she wants.
Cartoons and Mad Scientists
Many of us alive today have witnessed the ongoing evolution of the cartoon (not to be confused with comic) as fine art to visual work for print media, such as magazines and newspapers, to electronic media, and even animated films and animated digital media. When applied to print media, the word cartoon often refers to a humorous single-panel drawing or gag cartoon, usually with captions. When we refer to cartoons today, we typically mean animation of the type that is shown on television or in movie theatres.
Over the years we have all tuned into a cartoon or two, or three—either we have watched them, or we have watched as our kids watched them. Cartoons keep kids busy, from underfoot, out of our hair, and out of trouble; the value of such an attention getter is hard to argue with or to discourage.
Cartoons have all kinds of storylines that most of us are familiar with. For instance, print cartoons are used as caricatures and for editorial purposes, to name a few. Again, animated cartoons are primarily used in reference to programs for children featuring anthropomorphized animals (i.e., human characteristics or behavior given to inanimate objects or animals), the adventures of child protagonists, superheroes, and villains. It is the portrayal of these villains in cartoons, especially of mad scientists, that is of interest to us in this text.
The list of characters portraying mad scientists in cartoons is quite lengthy. We have listed a few of the better known cartoon mad scientists below.
• The Professor—from the cartoon series Felix the Cat
• Dr. Hess—from the manga/anime Saber Marionette J
• Doctor Arkeville—from the cartoon series Transformers
• Dr. Animo—from Ben 10
• Professor Membrane—from Invader Zim
• Dr. Slump—from Dr. Slump
• Dr. Weird form Aqua Teen Hunger Force
• Dr. Zin—from the Johnny Quest cartoon series
• Dr. Anton Sevarius from Gargoyles
• The Angry Scientist—from Sheep in the Big City
• Dr. Chipolte Jr. and Sr.—from El Tigre (TV series)
• Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz—from Phineas and Ferb
Mad Scientists in the Comics
The terms comics and cartoons are frequently interchanged, however, a comic book is not a cartoon and a cartoon is not a comic book. Comic book refers to the individual issues of a particular series. Typically, a comic book is a magazine-like product that tells a serial story over a period of months and years. Several popular comic books have been published that include mad scientists as the main villains. In these comic books some particular superhero (like Superman) comes to our aid to defend us and the world or universe from the mad scientist. Below is a list of some of the better known comic book mad scientists.
• Dr. Doom—from Marvel Comics, arch-enemy of the Fantastic Four
• Lex Luther—from DC Comics, arch-enemy of Superman
• Dr. Jonas Harrow—an enemy of Spider-Man
• Dr. August Hopper a.k.a. The Locust—from X-Men comics
• Dr. Light—enemy of the Teen Titans
• Dr. Weekday—from the Tezuka manga Phoenix series
• Casey and Andy—from the webcomic Cases and Andy
• Dr. Otto Bonn—from the webcomic The Polymer City Chronicles
• Suzy Gee—from the webcomic Nukees
• Bernie—from the comic strip Doonesbury
Mad Scientists in Video Games
The video game has become an electronic phenomenon. Actually, the term video game can be used to describe any kind of display device whereby interaction with a user is incorporated. The electronic devices or systems used to play video games are known as platforms which can be personal computers or video game consoles. As stated, video games typically involve interaction and information introduced via audio presentation, through the use of sound reproductions devices, such as speakers and headphones. However, other feedback may be provided via haptic (meaning to contact or touch) peripherals, such as force feedback or vibration.
The phenomenal popularity (the hook) and subsequent growth in video games and their usage stems from the ability of the user to interface and control certain actions within the video plot, such as in Madden NFL football where the user has unprecedented control over the outcome of each play.
In video games that include mad scientists, the hook is the adventure of the tale or episode. Whether good or evil, mad scientists performing their experiments at the outer fringes of science continue to be a draw. This is evidenced by the large number of video games about or including the exploits of the fringe scientists. These video games include:
• Izuka—from Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
• Dr. Wily—from the video game series Mega Man
• Doctor Synthesis—from Gahan Wilson’s The Ultimate Haunted House
• Dr. Caulder—from Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
• Dr. Malcolm Betruger—from Doom 3
• Dr. Riptide—from In Search of Dr. Riptide
In addition to the cultural sources already covered, mad scientists are highlighted in music (Dr. Steel), toys (Dr. S, Mutran, Dr. Ein-O and others), audio drama (examples include Dr. Adventure and Professor Nebulous), and even in opera (Soprano 1 in Facing Goya).
Real Life Mad Scientists
The mad scientists in the cultural media sources discussed above are all fictional; which is a good thing, of course. However, this is not to say that these fictional presentations and their mad characters are not influential; for those of us who are serious about science they are too influential. Moreover, for those of us who are attempting to convince people that science is a good thing, an important thing, a thing not to be ignored, mad scientists as portrayed in the cultural media sources implant a stereotypical hurdle in the minds of viewers and/or users that is often difficult to overcome. The oversimplified conceptions, opinions, or images based on the belief that there are attitudes, appearances, or behaviors shared by all members of the scientific community (of which mad scientists are part and parcel of) work in concert to stereotype scientists as mad or as being somewhat close to madness—maybe just borderline mad. Cultural media sources easily distinguish mad scientists from normal people by using a set of certain characteristics. These characteristics could leave the viewer, reader, or listener with a negative connotation because “all” scientists are grouped as disrespectful of human life and nature, based on their membership in the scientific community. In other words, scientists are often stereotyped as mad because of the overexposure of a few nut-jobs who just happen to be scientists. Stated differently: It only takes the evil actions of one mad scientist to mask the good work(s) of a hundred dedicated scientists. On the other hand, few rational people would argue with the premise that the batch (of anything) should not be judged by one rotten component. This holds true for science and scientists, of course.
Throughout time, scientists of one specialization or another have contributed great discoveries and innovations to chemistry, medicine, astronomy, agriculture, physics, and more.
Most of these innovations have been exceedingly useful and have set the foundation for even greater advances in the field. However, like all coins, there are two sides. As humans we sometimes tend to focus on the side that is selfish and sinister, because it interests us—temptation stoked by curiosity is difficult for many of us to overcome. Simply, we are rubberneckers who have never found a disaster too gruesome or nasty to turn our heads away from, even if for only a momentary glance.
Human failings can twist minds and when this involves scientists, it allows them to do more harm than good. Again, when sinister and selfish failings enter the scene, the scientist sometimes actually believes the evil he or she is about to perform is for the common good; their performance and experiments and findings will benefit all of humankind, and this is what makes these individuals truly mad.
Some would say that the difference between madness and evil is relative. Relative to what, we do not know. One thing is certain, however; beyond the ultimate personification of evil, Satan, there are a number of individuals who stand out in history as close cousins in their emulation of Satan and his evil deeds. In the contemporary world, two recent evildoers instantly come to mind: Hitler and Manson. Either of these names can easily be substituted for the word evil, and the meaning won’t be and can’t be lost.
Neither Hitler nor Manson were scientists; mad yes, scientists no. However, there is one name that could be substituted for either Hitler or Manson and the connotation would be clear and certainly not lost. We are referring to Dr. Josef Mengele known worldwide for medical experiments he performed on prisoners at Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. Dr. Mengele is the classic poster child for mad scientists. While the details of Dr. Mengele’s medical experiments on humans are too gruesome to detail and not germane to this text, we point out that he and his colleagues performed outrageous experiments on twins, using human beings as guinea pigs in freezing, malaria, mustard gas, sea water, poisons, incendiary bombs, and high altitude experiments.
In summary, we have pointed out that the mad scientist syndrome exists and is commonly discussed or displayed through its many different manifestations and applications. In our efforts to sell science, the perceptual prevalence of “mad scientist” types in the field of science works to turn some people away from the study of science or the practice of science as a way of life. As mentioned, people seem to enjoy madness and mad scientists in the same fashion as people were attracted to and mesmerized by gladiators in the Roman Coliseum. This is a shame and we point that out because madness knows no boundary. It manifests itself in many forms and occupations and is not unique to science—we could just as easily identify people as mad carpenters, mad plumbers, mad window washers, mad electricians, or mad hatters as we can mad scientists. The problem is that mad scientists can do much more harm to us than skilled tradesmen who also happen to be mad. Besides, we have little difficulty identifying with the skilled tradesman, however, we resent the arrogant scientist who talks down to us in unfamiliar language. In addition, further complicating the effort to convince anyone of the benefits and need for science and scientists is the mix of the stereotype of mad scientist with the practice of voodoo science—when this occurs, there is hell to pay and no amount of convincing will move the mountain. We discuss voodoo science in the next chapter.
References and Recommended Reading
Bulgakov, M., 1924. The Fatal Eggs. London: Hesperus Press.
Bulgakov, M., 1925. Heart of a Dog. Seattle: CreateSpace.
Hawthorne, N., 1843. The Birthmark. www.online-literature.com/hawthorne/125/ (accessed September 19, 2009).
Hawthorne, N., 1844. Rappaccini’s Daughter, In Mosses from an Old Manse. Chicago: Donohue, Henneberry & Co.
Hawthorne, N., 1844. The Artist of the Beautiful. www.geocities.com/cabalur875schs/stuff.html (accessed September 19, 2009).
Heinlein, R. A., 1939. Life-Line. New York: Amereon Ltd.
MacGrath, H., 1920. The Drums of Jeopardy. New York: Kessinger Publishing.
Shelley, M., 2004. Frankenstein. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Stevenson, R. L., 1886. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House Inc.
Taglines (2017). The Wolf Man. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034398/tablines?ref. Accessed August 21, 2017.