{"id":1556,"date":"2019-02-04T18:09:37","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T16:09:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/?p=1556"},"modified":"2019-02-04T18:09:37","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T16:09:37","slug":"revisiting-frankenstein-a-few-notes-on-domesticity-the-cyborg-and-the-post-human","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2019\/02\/04\/revisiting-frankenstein-a-few-notes-on-domesticity-the-cyborg-and-the-post-human\/","title":{"rendered":"REVISITING FRANKENSTEIN<\/em>: A FEW NOTES ON DOMESTICITY, THE CYBORG AND THE POST-HUMAN<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

I will soon start teaching Mary Shelley\u2019s Frankenstein<\/em> and although the best time to revisit this classic was last year\u2013the bicentennial anniversary of its original publication\u20132019 is also a good moment to re-read it, for it is the year when Ridley Scott set his masterpiece, Blade Runner<\/em> (1982). Both novel and film are closely connected, since Blade Runner<\/em>, though based on Philip K. Dick\u2019s bizarre SF novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?<\/em> (1969) is one of the myriad texts descended from Frankenstein<\/em>. Mary Shelley was the first to ask, in earnest, \u2018what if science could generate powerful monsters that could escape human control?\u2019 and this is a question that frames Dick\u2019s and Scott\u2019s work. And our year 2019.<\/p>\n

I have recently reviewed an article by a young researcher in which I found some confusion regarding the use of the concepts \u2018post-human\u2019 and \u2018cyborg\u2019, and I\u2019ll use Frankenstein<\/em> to clarify them, and then to proceed with some comments. Before I forget: I\u2019m using the Oxford World\u2019s Classic edition (the 2008 reprint) with my students but I was aghast to see that the prologue and the bibliography are the work of one Prof. M.K. Joseph who died in 1981. I immediately e-mailed the Literature editor at Oxford UP to suggest that they commission a new introduction by someone who truly understands how Mary Shelley\u2019s mistresspiece connects with current, urgent issues, and, generally, with our science-fictional present. We\u2019ll see if they answer.<\/p>\n

Brian Aldiss famously celebrated in Billion Year Spree<\/em> (1973) Mary Shelley as the mother of science fiction, stressing in passing that the Gothic narrative mode is one of the foundations of sf, at least of its more technophobic branch. Re-reading the novel now, at the beginning of 2019, and possibly for the fifth or sixth time (I lose track), a few things strike me as singular. One is that Mary\u2019s tale is a frontal attack against male ambition but not necessarily a feminist text; the other is that she understood long before we had a name for it, what the post-human is. <\/p>\n

The feminist question is obvious enough: Victor\u2019s horrific ordeal is framed by the letters that explorer Robert Walton sends to his sister Margaret so that we see how useless men\u2019s pursuit of glory, honour and fame is. The alternative lifestyle which Mary recommends is, nevertheless, one of sedate domesticity, in which women occupy a traditional position as dutiful, pre-Victorian angels in the house.<\/p>\n

Margaret, the addressee of the letters by Captain Walton that frame Victor\u2019s and the monster\u2019s testimonials, stands for married bliss in safety and domesticity. So does Elizabeth Lavenza, Victor\u2019s adoptive sister, and doomed wife as the monster\u2019s victim; as such, she is the embodiment of the dangers that men bring into the peace of the hearth but also of total submission. Mary, the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, the woman who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women<\/em> (1792), among which she placed education in a central position, never mentions Elizabeth\u2019s right to attend university, as Victor and his friend Henry do. She is raised to be Victor\u2019s wife and no event in the awful tragedy that unfolds diverts her from this path, even though she could have been much better company for Victor if only she had some inkling of his overambitious scientific pursuits. Mary Shelley simply offers no critique of the patriarchal script written for Elizabeth by his adoptive parents and by Victor himself, even though the author is adamant that there is something very wrong in men\u2019s extra-domestic pursuit of glory and, using Barbara Ehrenright\u2019s phrase, their \u2018flight from commitment\u2019.<\/p>\n

I partly agree with Mary\u2019s critique of the male sacrifice of domesticity\u2013possibly what she endured as Percy Shelley\u2019s wife\u2013because it is often based on total selfishness. At the same time, I fail to see in which ways the world would be a better place if the many self-driven individuals (mostly men but also many women) had limited themselves to raising families. There must be a middle ground. <\/p>\n

Reading David Grann\u2019s excellent non-fiction account of British explorer Percy Fawcett\u2019s suicidal search for the lost City of Z (the title of the book), I often thought that male wanderlust must be evidence of ingrained insanity. Yet, so many women also feel the drive to fulfil their ambitions even against all reason that it cannot simply be a matter of gender but something else that makes domesticity secondary. Why someone with small, dependent children would volunteer to travel to Mars, and possibly never return, baffles me, not so much because of the need to fulfil the dream but because of the aspiration to combine ambition and family. This is not, of course, Walton\u2019s and Frankenstein\u2019s situation, and perhaps what Mary Shelley was saying is that excessive ambition is incompatible with family life, and even with life. But, is this right? If she was imagining some low-key, pastoral idyll, as an alternative, she does not explain. At the same time, most often the likes of Victor are managing to create man-made horrors while keeping jobs and family well balanced, a possibility Mary does not contemplate, believing as she does that scientific discovery is a kind of youthful brain fever that overtakes everything else in the single individual\u2019s life. Again: there must be a middle-ground.<\/p>\n

How about the cyborg and the post-human? The monster that Victor creates is NOT a cyborg, for a cyborg is a creature, or person, whose body combines organic and inorganic materials. Donna Haraway had read sufficient science fiction when she wrote her famous 1985 tract \u2018A Manifesto for Cyborgs\u2019 to understand this, but it seems to me that very often students and scholars who use the word cyborg do not really know what they\u2019re talking about, and simply assume that the word refers to any artificial creation. <\/p>\n

Victor\u2019s monster is artificial because he is not woman-born but he is 100% organic. Frankenstein discovers first the principle of life, \u2018the capacity of bestowing animation\u2019, and decides next to build a superhuman body\u2013if that body is functional, then he will apply himself to re-animating ordinary human corpses. Since preparing \u2018a frame\u2019 is difficult because of \u2018its intricacies of fibres, muscles, and veins\u2019 he decides to work at a larger scale: \u2018As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature, that is to say, about eight feet [2.40 m] in height, and proportionably large\u2019. Mary wrote before DNA was known, and before the first transplant of a human organ was ever attempted, and we need to read this part of Victor\u2019s research as a necessarily preposterous tale; yet, the main point is that he is not using magic but science.<\/p>\n

Once the creature is made\u2013and in its manufacture 20-year-old Victor is amazingly successful\u2013Frankenstein is appalled to see that he is an ugly thing: \u2018His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips\u2019. Nobody has really managed to give an accurate pictorial representation of the monster, who does not look at all like the bolts-and-nuts version of Boris Karloff. Yet, I always say that Victor\u2019s problem is that while he is a great anatomist and a wonderful surgeon, he is a disaster as an artist. A failure, if you wish, as a plastic surgeon. Had be been able to combine the features selected harmoniously, we would have a very different tale of celebrity, as everyone admires a beautiful being. As for his being a giant, well, being 7 feet tall is the foundation of Pau Gasol\u2019s celebrity\u2026 The monster would be a highly valuable basketball player today!<\/p>\n

Something that I missed in previous readings is how often the monster refers to ordinary human beings as another species, and also to himself. I am always correcting my students when they refer to the human race for we are a species (Homo Sapiens) and not a race, and I was surprised to see that the monster is well aware of this crucial difference. The name Homo Sapiens was coined by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 but this was long before any thought of evolution was contemplated by Charles Darwin (1809-1882); many have commented on Mary\u2019s allusion to Darwin\u2019s grandfather, Erasmus (1731-1802) as the scientist whose discoveries in connection to electricity may have inspired Frankenstein\u2019s use of an engine to ignite the spark of life. Yet, to me, the monster\u2019s awareness of species difference is far more exciting. <\/p>\n

When he demands en Eve from his maker, the creature argues: \u2018I am alone and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species<\/em> and have the same defects. This being you must create\u2019 (my italics). Of course, I\u2019m cheating a little bit, for Mary mixes \u2018species\u2019 and \u2018race\u2019 indiscriminately and, thus, Victor decides to destroy the female creature he is working on afraid that \u2018a race of devils would be propagated upon the earth who might make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror\u2019. He is horrified to see himself as the \u2018pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race\u2019. My point, though, is equally valid: Frankenstein<\/em> is the earliest text to posit the possible replacement of Homo Sapiens with a man-made superior human species, that is to say, with a post-human species.<\/p>\n

The difference between the cyborg and the post-human is, then, easy enough to understand: the cyborg has inorganic material in their body and cannot pass on any modification of this kind to their offspring; in contrast, the post-human is a different human species that will breed other individuals of the same species, and might wipe out Homo Sapiens if competing for the same environmental resources. As the Neanderthal disappeared, so might we, with the difference that this might happen out of our own mad shattering of the frontiers of science, if we go just one step too far and modify the human genome. Of course, neither Mary nor Victor knew about all this, but their ignorance is irrelevant (also an anachronism): the monster is a monster because we are terrified of the possibility that other humans might push us out. Victor, it must be recalled, manufactures not just someone who is big but also someone who is strong, extremely resistant to heat and cold, with an enhanced muscular capacity and, in short, far better equipped than Homo Sapiens to live on a radically post-human Earth.<\/p>\n

The other novel I am teaching this semester is Jane Austen\u2019s Pride and Prejudice<\/em> (1813), published five years before Frankenstein<\/em>. Indeed, Austen died in 1817, while Mary Shelley was busy writing her novel, as a young mother of the boy William. I never cease to be amazed that English Literature could accommodate in the same period styles in fabulation so thoroughly different. And I wonder what would have happened if Elizabeth Bennet instead of Elizabeth Lavenza had fallen in love with Victor Frankenstein, rather than Fitzwilliam Darcy. Or if Darcy had kept a secret lab at Pemberley. Possibly, some kind of literary short-circuit!<\/p>\n

How lucky we are, then, that we can enjoy both Mary Shelley and Jane Austen. <\/p>\n

I publish a post every Tuesday (follow @SaraMartinUAB). Comments are very welcome! Download the yearly volumes from: http:\/\/ddd.uab.cat\/record\/116328. My web: http:\/\/gent.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I will soon start teaching Mary Shelley\u2019s Frankenstein and although the best time to revisit this classic was last year\u2013the bicentennial anniversary of its original publication\u20132019 is also a good moment to re-read it, for it is the year when Ridley Scott set his masterpiece, Blade Runner (1982). Both novel and film are closely connected, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,13,19,29,30,31],"tags":[147,166,207,212,318,360,379],"class_list":["post-1556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fabulation","category-fantasy","category-gothic","category-romanticism-regency-literature","category-science","category-science-fiction","tag-cyborg","tag-domesticity","tag-frankenstein","tag-gender-studies","tag-mary-shelley","tag-patriarchy","tag-post-human"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}