Victor, or the Created Creator
Nature and science are two realms that should never merge according to those who believe humans, at best, are observers; yet those with these views should adopt the mindset that accepts science as a tool to go beyond and modify elements of nature. Many retreat at the thought of mankind overstepping their boundaries when it comes to nature’s modification. But how far can nature be modified as mankind sees fit? Nature, like legislation, can be stretched. With legislation, stretch it too far and a law will break. Authorities will take notice, convict the criminal, and legislators will, to their best efforts, attempt to remedy the loopholes that caused the law to be flexible. With nature, laws cannot be broken. The phenomenon within nature is that when one has thought himself to have violated a law of nature, chances are it was never a law to begin with. Once mankind can see or measure those boundaries, then every scientific achievement that comes after thereby extends those boundaries. But can this boundary continue extension until eternity? Is there a defined limit for how mankind can modify nature? This is the dilemma of Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s The Modern Prometheus. Did Mary Shelley know how far her novel themes would extend, on those nights of exchanging German ghost stories with Lord Byron and her lover, Percy Shelley? Assuredly, this message of recreating life in the image of ourselves touches the inhabitants of 2017 as we continue mastering the blueprints of artificial minds. Examining both creator-as well as those associated with him-and his creation, this act of molding artificial life can only lead to the fall of man.
With Victor, it is necessary to examine his, as well as other characters’, perception of his creation. When blackmailed by his monster, Victor is tasked with creating a companion for it, much like molding an Eve for Adam in Biblical terms. But instead of going through with the deal, he tears to pieces the companion he had worked on. He fathomed a future wrecked with chaos by filling it with another creature he finds so detestable (173). On Victor’s side of the argument, humanity served no purpose to beings that were clearly physically and intellectually superior (consider the time it takes for the monster to learn literature at its age) except to be a direct threat; from the monster’s perspective, as long as it had its companion, there would be no purpose of bothering humanity further. Both sides hold merit. Aside from that, when the creature confronts William Frankenstein it retells the encounter to Victor, saying that the boy mocked its appearance, referring to it as an ogre. As a result, the creature murders the boy, further proving to the creature that no man, even the youth, can be its companion (144). Its affirmation that it requires a companion of its own species is strengthened. Or when Felix and his family, the beings that the creature had watched so long and gave its hidden aid to, reject the creature’s appearance by attacking it (136). As duality dictates, the monster is capable of higher understanding in contrast to its appearance. I assert that, as Shelley perhaps intends, that the creature is different from mankind, not by its appearance, but by the mere existence of it. The monster is a new species, the only other capable of self-awareness.
In Shelley’s time, if the timeline varied from the one now, possible artificial life-like Victor’s monster-would look quite rudimentary. But now, the desire of mankind to have artificial intelligence fiercely reflect humanity has set a new standard. I am unsure if humanity would take kindly to AI assuming the physical appearance of humans, but are most likely receptive to applauding a vocal creation like Apple’s Siri-after all, if it is out of sight, it cannot be that intrusive...As a look back to the ending of Frankenstein, the ultimate failure of mankind crafting an imitation of itself is that we are fallible gods; artificial life can never reflect ourselves because we are products of chaos (of Big Bang Theory and evolution) and/or crafted by an invisible god that can never be clearly communicated with. By revealing ourselves to our own creations, we are morally wronging them and ourselves by showing them our impotencies. “‘Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? (130)’”
Work Cited
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: 1818. Intervisual Books, 2010.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: 1818. Intervisual Books, 2010.
bio
Charles Rainey is in his first year at PCC and already he's doing terribly at balancing schoolwork with his full-time job.