Gallardo-Torrano, Pere

Repositorio da Universidade da Coruña

TECHNÉ VERSUS HUBRIS: FRANKENSTEIN AS GENRE INITIATOR Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a peculiar case in the history of English fiction. Stubbornly la-belled a "minor" work for years, its relevance has sporadically been emphasized by sectors of criticism which are willing to admit it is a landmark in the development of their respective trend. Thus, it has altematively been hailed as a reelaboration of the Promethean theme, as the work by a young girl whose talent has long been obliterated by her husband's, as an ex-ample of male appropriation of the idea of motherhood, as a pre-Marxist metaphor ofbour-geois oppression, and probably other interpretations which combine features of the ones men-tioned before. My comments here will try to' show that Frankenstein should be (an in fact is) seen as a genre initiator by most science fiction critics. Unfortunately, the validity of this assertion as a working hypothesis clashes with the academic gap between mainstream fiction and science fiction critics, who often embark on heated but useless discussions about the literary canon. CBesides the various interpretations of Frankenstein provided by mainstream literature critics, and its acknowledged relationship with classical mythology, the novel has become a landmark in the history of science fiction. Frankenstein is commonly referred to as having marked the beginning of a new mode of writing because unlike in previous tales of life crea-tion, the new being was to be created by scientific means. In this sense, the critic Samuel Holmes Vasbinder (1976: 83) has written: With the emergence of speculative fiction as a legitimate area of concem for critics in the academic arena, Frankenstein must be evaluated in an entirely new light as a early work of his genre. The great number of literary offsprings which the book has been responsible for, and the increasingly popular use of the phrase "Frankenstein's mon-ster" as a general term for the identification of the irresponsible use of scientific achievement, forces the novel into a new category. In fact, Frankenstein has often been presented as a Gothic or near-Gothic romance because it shares sorne basic features with the main representatives of that trend. Although it is true that Frankenstein is not exactly on the same leve! as Ann Radcliff and Matthew Lewis' works, it seems clear, however, that it shares sorne elements with them which allow its classification under the "Gothic" label. In 1951 Muriel Spark (1951: 128) already suggested that by 1818 "the limits ofthe horror novel had been reached, and old props of haunted castles, hanged babes and moonlit scenes, were beginning to raise a shrug rather than a shudder." Moreover, the publication of Many Sundry Wits Gathered Together 1996: 187-192 Pere Gallardo-Torrano Many Sundry Wits Gathered Together Northanger Abbey, Jane Austen's 1818 satire of Gothic excesses hinted atan approaching de-cline of that mode of writing. Spark (1951: 128) maintained that Frakenstein was "the frrst of a new hybrid fictional species where horror was increasingly giving way to the influence of science and its effects on man both at an individual and a collec,tive 1evel. In other words, according to her, Frankentein cou1d 1 shou1d be seen as the result of combining two opposing forces. On the one hand, "the scientific empiricism of the previous century" represented by Mary's father William Godwin. On the other hand, "the nineteenth century's imaginative reaction" personi-fied by Coleridge. (1951: 132) The inclusion of Frankenstein within the field of science fiction narrative is easily justi-fied by the use of scientific or pseudoscientific means to create the monster. lt has often been pointed out that the scientific knowledge of a girl of eighteeen must have been highly limited, and therefore the science fictional reading of the novel is somehow forced, although this is not necessarily so. In fact, critics such as Vasbinder (1976), Aldiss (1986) and Mellor (1988) have pointed out that Mary Shelley was in close contact with sorne of the leading scientists of her time. Considering that the gap between science and the humanities was not as wide as it seems to be nowadays, it may be concluded that her knowledge of science was sound enough to pro-duce a literary reaction like Frankenstein. Regardless of her specific scientific background, it is undeniable that she was aware of the latest discoveries in galvanism. In her "Introduction" to the 1831 edition, Mary specifical-ly mentions Erasmus Darwin and the experiments carried out by the ltalian physiologist Luigi Galvani ( 1737 -1798), who proved that an electric shock could cause dead muscles to twitch as if they were alive. Furthennore, as a child Mary had met the chemist and physicist Humphrey Davy (1778-1829), who was a close friend of her father's, and was familiar with his work Chemical Philo-sophy (1812). To this it should be added that she was a warm admirer of her father's philoso-phical ideas and her mother's feminist concerns, and that her liaison with Shelley was highly enriching from an intellectual point of view. Consequently, it may be concluded that Frank-enstein does not only show Mary Shelley's awareness of the new methods and scientific dis-coveries, but also of the social movements and literary fashions both in England and on the Continent. The scientific relevance of the theme of life creation may go unnoticed to those readers and critics who approach the novel. with a non-scientific bias. Such an approach may find ob-vious connections between Frankenstein and previous myths, legends and tales where life is bestowed upon human and non-human beings by means other than the natural. Thus, a quick reading of Mary's novel will surely discover similarities with the mytical figues of Pygmalion and the giant Talus. Likewise, it is not difficult to discover common elements between Frank-enstein and the Jewish folk tales about golems. A glance at the corpus of Western European 188 Pere Gallardo-Torrano literature will also detect the connections between Shelley's work and Goethe's poem "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," and al so with all the European reelaborations of the Faustian theme. Finally, as a corollary to all these potential ancestors and 1 or influences, the novel may be pointed out as a new version of the myth of Prometheus, although slightly modified to make it fit within the coordinates of the literary taste of the age it was written. Nevertheless, if we approach "Mary Shelley's text bearing in mind the relevance of science fiction as a multimedia manifestation of popular culture, we may easily notice that Franken-stein has inspired hundreds of science fiction productions both in literature and cinema. In this respect, there is one theme in science fiction which is particularly indebted to Mary Shel-ley, namely, robot fiction. The number of robot stories and novels which are inspired by or overtly imitate Frankenstein in structure, content, and meaning is amazing. There is one twentieth century author, however, who took a step further and moulded all his stories as anti-Frankenstein pieces. His name is Isaac Asimov. A scientist himself, Asimov always fought what he de-scribed as the Faustian element of science. Very often he told the story that he did not like all the robot stories written before 1940 because they revolved around the exploitation of a theme inherited from Mary Shelley's novel. So much so that eventually he coined the phrase "Frankenstein complex" to describe a widespread attitude which tended to ignore the poten-tia! benefits of technology and overemphasised a Promethean interpretation clearly derived from Frankenstein. In order to counterbalance this prevailing attitude, Asimov enunciated his famous "Three Laws of Robotics," which he first quoted in his short story "Runaround" (1942). The three Laws read as follows: l. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. These Laws, which sorne critics have compared to the Ten Commandements, basically set limitations on robot behaviour. Certainly, a careful reading of these Laws pro ves that the First one is concemed with respect for the creator, and is meant to act as a safety mechanism for human beings. The Second one deals with obedience as the main raison d'étre for robots. Fi-nally, the Third one protects the life of robots on condition the First and Second laws are not broken. All in all, these rules enshrine a hierarchical division of power in the universe, which grants human comfort, robot reliability, and low-cost maintenance. Using as his starting point a Marxist reading of Frankenstein where "the monster can be read as a metaphor of the new class which the bourgeoisie has brought into existence but can no longer control or get rid of," the critic Alessandro Portelli (1980: 55) concludes that the 189 Many Sundry Wits Gathered Together Three Laws are not only a reassurance for the audience as to the role of science after Hiro-shima, but also a guarantee against alienation anda model for social control( ... ). Taken toge-ther, the Three Laws guarantee the social stability which is essential to the dynamics of hu-man capitalist and territorial expansion. Nevertheless, the parallelism which can be established between Frankenstein and twenti-eth-century robot stories is limited. On the one hand, it is undeniable that as a (pseudo-)scientific novel about artificially created life it has obviously influenced a great deal of robot fiction. On the other hand, though, the fact that the attempt at life creating focusses on the re-production of a human being, out of human physiological material, separates Victor's creature from modem robots and places it near other attempts where the main target was the creation 1 reproduction of flesh and blood beings (e.g. Karel Capek's 1921 play R.U.R.) Frankenstein, however, has become the most influential work on later robot fiction in terms of attitudes and behaviours, both the scientist's and the creature's. As a forerunner of later scientists, Victor has beco me a standard model. A mixture of pride, curiosity, good will and messianic impulse leads him to try his hands at life creating. Victor foresees that "a new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as 1 should deserve theirs." (97) He also wants to find out about the principie of life, which, as he concedes, is a great mystery, yet "with how many things are we upon the brink of becoming acquainted if cowardice or carelessness did not restrain our enquiries." (95) Furthermore, Victor's experiments are also inspired by good will. As he says, "I thought that if 1 could be-stow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time ( ... ) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption." (98) But there is a messianic touch in all his efforts, and so when he tries to justify his decision to kili the monster he states: "My duties towards the beings of my own species had greater claims to my attention because they inclu-ded a greater proportion of happiness or misery." (255) lmmediately after the completion of his experiment, and echoing previous Westem folk and literary traditions, he rejects the out-come of his creative effort thus integrating within a scientific context an image borrowed from myth, which 1 have called the trespasser. The science fictional reading of Frankenstein sees Victor as the modem scientific man, whereas the creature he makes would stand for man's technology. Consequently, Victor per-sonifies the various roles assigned to science throughout history. As a further development of curiosity, and looked at from a Christian cultural standpoint, science may have negative con-notations as it may be easily linked to Adam's fall. Technology, however, as a convenient outcome of science, may improve our lives on condition we are willing to pay a price Victor refused to: the acceptance that it may suddenly run out of control if it is not given proper at-tention. As a consequence, the scientist (Victor) becomes an ambiguous figure both praised and censured, welcomed and feared, loved and hated. Victor's rejection of his "monster" may be understood as a religion-rooted sense of guilt for having trespassed on the laws of nature, 190 Pere Gallardo-Torrano but also as the horror of the scientist upon noticing his own breathtaking power. In this sense, Victor has become a much irnitated character in later science fiction. The stock character of the mad scientist is probably rooted in the psychological strain produced when trying to har-monize these two elements. The "monster," in turn, has become a referent for many robot characters who, in fact, do nothing but copy his pattems of behaviour. He is created innocent but his "birth" is stained from the beginning because it is an unnatural (sinful) act. After his rejection and subsequent desertion by his creator he grows bitter and channels his frustration towards his master. He demands recognition as a human being, or conversely an emotional placebo: a mate. As nei-ther of these requests is heedéd, he tums against his creator and tries to destroy him although this destruction entails his own, which proves that irrationality is not an exclusive feature of his maker. He was created in man's own image. Therefore, it is not surprising that he shares with his creator the same virtues and vices which led to his creation. The doppelgiinger image is thus completed and the role-reversal situation reaches its climax. By the time Victor has made up his mind not to build a second creature, he and his mon-ster exchange these words: Begone! Ido break my promise: never will I create another like yourself, equal in de-formity and wickedness. S lave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my con-descension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are m y creator, but I am your master; obey! (208) It is precisely this kind of language which has produced a chain reaction in twentieth-century robot stories. By taking advantage of well-known myths and post-Industrial Revolution con-ditioned reflexes, many of these stories are mere reelaborations of these very ideas. Eventu-ally, as I said above, this attitude was named by Asimov the"Frankenstein complex," meaning the fears trigered by the scientist's irresponsible behaviour, but most particularly, the robot's uncontrollable personality. But twenty years before Asimov's harmless robots apeared, the Check author Karel Capek proved how influential Frankenstein had been for him. Capek's robots in R. U. R. are not even machanical, so the differences from Victor's creature are mini-mal. They are flesh and blood artificial beings created in man's image who run out of control as a consequence of an unfair treatment. Talking about R. U.R., Christopher Small (1972: 301) has written that "it is the true heir of Frankenstein, the only work in which Mary Shelley's imaginative creation is continued with something like similar freedom." 1 quite agree with him. However, and besides the coincidence in nature, mechanical robots rather than Capek's flesh and blood beings are the real heirs to Victor's creature. In the first place because they are made of metal, a material reminiscent of the Industrial and post-Industrial Revolution landscape. Secondly, because, as most performaces of R. U. R. ha ve shown, the metallic (machine-like) appearance was a necessary step forward in the separation of the mere horror-191 Many Sundry Wits Gathered Together creating figures (with a clearly Gothic ancestry) from the twentieth-century post-Russian Revolution drudges. The language of Frankenstein, with the logical variations in vocabulary, syntax and style has been reproduced in hundreds of robot stories. In fact, writers have only had to mak:e mi-nor changes to adapt the same old concepts to the new imagery. In this sense, despite the dif-ferences, Frankenstein is by far the text which has exerted the deepest influence on later robot fiction. Therefore, maybe it is time for mainstream critics to admit that the battle between hubris and techné is just as artificial as the being Victor tried to create. REFERENCES Pere Gallardo-Torrano Universitat de Lleida Aldiss, Brian 1986: Trillion Year Spree (The History of Science Fiction). New York, Atheneum. Mellor, Anne K. 1988: Mary Shelley. Her Lije. Her Fiction. Her Monsters. New York & London, Routledge. Portelli, Alessandro 1980: The Three Laws of Robotics: Laws of Text, Laws of Production, Laws of Society. Science Fiction Studies No. 21 Vol. 7.2 Shelley, Mary 1985 (1818): Frankenstein, or the Modem Prometheus. Harmondsworth, Pen-guin. Smal1, Christopher 1972: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Tracing the Myth). Pittsburgh, U. of Pittsburgh Press. Spark, Muriel1951: Child of Light. A Reassessment of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Hadley, Tower Bridge Publications. Vasbinder, Samuel Holmes 1984 (1976): Scientific Attitudes in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Ann Arbor, Mich., UMI Research Press. * * * 192 

Techné versus Hybris: Frankenstein as genre initiator

http://ruc.udc.es/dspace/bitstream/2183/9575/1/CC_27_art_23.pdf

Techné versus Hybris: Frankenstein as genre initiator

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositorio da Universidade da Coruña