![]() The collection will be an invaluable resource for students and scholars specialising in Romanticism, cultural history, philosophy and the history of science. While Frankenstein is all too often read as a cautionary tale of the inherent dangers of uncontrolled scientific experimentation, the essays here take the reader back to a period when experimenters and radical thinkers viewed science as the harbinger of social innovation that would counter the virulent conservative backlash following the French Revolution. The collection embraces a multifaceted view of the exciting cultural climate in Britain and Europe from 1780 to 1830. The essays in this volume by leading writers in their fields provide new historical scholarship into areas of science and pseudo-science that generated fierce controversy in Mary Shelley's time: anatomy, electricity, medicine, teratology, Mesmerism, quackery and proto-evolutionary biology. It’s powered by PubPub which you should also check out.Though Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has inspired a vast body of criticism, there are no book-length studies that contextualise this widely taught novel in contemporary scientific and literary debates. Update: Sam Arbesman (who write a mean newsletter) sent me Frankenbook, an open access version of the book referenced above. The latter, however-the Promethean-is a warning to these same creators that, when they *do* exercise that knowledge and power, they must be willing to take responsibility for the things they create, for the work of their hands, which is what Prometheus did and what Victor failed to do. ![]() The former is a warning to “creators”-scientists, engineers and what this new edition of “Frankenstein” calls “creators of all kinds”-of the risks of hubris: reaching to exercise knowledge and powers that are not fully understood, whose consequences cannot be predicted and which cannot be controlled. ![]() We can thus discern two kinds of cautionary tales in “Frankenstein” (there are others): one Miltonian and the other Promethean. He refuses to engage with the creature and flees, and he does so because he is not able to see its essential nature, its needs and his part in their fulfilment-and that, Bear says, is on account of his monstrous “narcissism, this inability to engage with other creatures” as creatures like himself.Īnd brings two kinds of cautionary tales, both very much worthy of deeper reflection and of today’s challenges: He runs away from it and refuses to engage with it. Victor, she says, is morally culpable for not taking responsibility for his creation and for his refusal to acknowledge his responsibility because he cannot see it for what it is. It’s something that more and more people realize and integrate in their teaching, planning, and hiring but which is still regularly disregarded in many technology circles.įrom Elizabeth Bear’s essay, this sounds familier: Today these two aspects of education are often times presented as opposites, and in some kind of fight, where on the contrary they need to coexist and feed from each other. She studied the humanities-literature, philosophy and classics, as well as the science of the day. The piece and the book it refers also cover how Shelley’s work is regarded by many as the first work of science-fiction and how it was made possible not only by her great talent but also her education. ![]() Douglas’s critical essay shrewdly calls the “bitter aftertaste of technical sweetness”-tragedy set in the distinctly modern conditions of secular science and technology. It is an important part of what gives “Frankenstein” its enduring hold on our contemporary imagination: Both the novel and the cultural icon derive their special pathos from what Heather E. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein’s Monster in another time of technological transition, the Industrial Revolution. These annotations often raise novel questions about technology and society, extrapolating from the technological conditions suggested by the novel into terms that might emerge today, alongside the more usual role of explanatory footnotes in a student text. Using the novel as a canvas on which to think through contemporary issues. The critical essays accompanying the text are eclectic, cross-disciplinary, and incisive, and they include contributions from beyond the academy, such as the essays by science fiction authors Elizabeth Bear and Cory Doctorow. This review of the book Frankenstein: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds gives a good overview of the contents and thinking. Amidst all the calls for more ethics and considerations for social issues on the part of tech companies, this looks like quite an interesting and innovative way of approaching the problem.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |