A Dead Soul

When first putting a connection between the two of Latour’s statements, the phrase, ‘my soul is dead,’ comes to mind. A person can be up and running– a completely functioning flesh and bones being, however he/she could feel like his/her insides have literally shut down. I’ve come to notice that some people let the realities of life take them over. If somebody has a bad day, or does badly in school, it leads to a 180, and the person’s world as he/she knows it is over. That is because, as Latour says, “reality sets anyone who looks for it to quaking all over.” A person, just like a piece of technology, can just be inanimate. However, unlike the storybook– where there has to be a culprit– in reality, there doesn’t. It is true that there is usually a guilty party; somebody to blame. But, in reality, there are plenty of tangents that could perpetrate a ‘death.’ With a technological innovation, there’s a plethora of factors that could contribute to some sort of death within the process, but that does not create an assassinating, butchering, murder.
In the case of Aramis, Latour argues that “there was no murder,” even though it was a failed project. On page 292, Latour writes, “You had a hypersensitive project, and you treated it as if you could get it through under its own stream. But you weren’t nuclear power, you weren’t the army; you weren’t able to make the ministries, the Budget Office, or the passengers behave in such a way as to adapt themselves to Aramis’ subtle variations, to its hesitations and its moods. And you left Aramis to cope under its own steam when it was actually weak and fragile. You believed in the autonomy of technology.” He explains the fact that Aramis is a product of reality. The certainties of reality is that when things are too difficult for a person, and that person begins “quaking all over,” he/she will become overwhelmed. Aramis, as an actor, became completely overwhelmed with all of the intricacies within its operation. So, since its innovators couldn’t control every minuscule element, they didn’t intentionally and vigorously put an end to it. Aramis died out on its own.
If somebody claims that his/her ‘soul is dead,’ in a novel, then the truth of it is that he/she will rise up to the occasion, and come to a growing realization– ultimately being able to crawl out of the cave. The truth happens in novels. However, in reality it eats away at the person, and becomes a death, not a murder.
Latour’s statements connect directly to Victor Frankenstein’s creation in Frankenstein. The monster was created; he had flesh, blood, bones, a brain, and the whole package. However he, as an actor, came to a death as well. Without the correct guidance and supervision, his thoughts were maliciously directed. Ultimately, the monster was still there, but his emotions had died.

Translated Dreams

“Translation” in Bruno Latour’s Aramis, is the idea of passing along an idea from someone’s own imagination to the masses.  It is the idea that inventions exist in the mind of an engineer, and then on paper, and then have to be translated into an actual feasible device.  In exploring the potential of this new kind of transportation Latour writes, “Aramis was a text; it became close to becoming, it nearly became, it might have became, an object, an institution, a means of transportation in Paris” (24).  Latour is essentially saying that Aramis could not be translated properly from the mind of an engineer to the rest of Paris, or the rest of the world for that matter.  This idea of dreams failing to “translate” is further romanticized by another quote:

 

“Dreams change the scale of phenomena, as we know: they allow new combinations and they mix up properties,” (29).

 

This second quote is important to the theme of translation because Aramis stands for more than just a failed mode of transportation.  It is about the conception of an idea and the failure to translate that idea, or dream into a physical object.

 

Towards the end of chapter one Latour seems to say that trying to “translate” the idea of Aramis to the public or to people who could move the idea to a reality is what killed the project.  The example of a car was used, and Latour explains that if an engineer had to describe every detail of the workings a car before it was realized the idea of an automobile would have been rejected.  This is due to the fact, Latour says, that “to translate is to betray: ambiguity is part of the translation,” (48).  This could be the first instance in which I noticed a direct correlation to this novel and our discussions in class about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  This perhaps is the answer to our frustration over Shelley’s lack of detail when it came to Frankenstein’s creation.  Maybe this ambiguity was meant to be part of the translation.  Below is another quote I found in Aramis to relate to Shelley’s work on the general theme of the inventor’s imagination and the importance of (or lack of) translation:

 

“No, Aramis is feasible, at least as feasible as dinosaurs, for life is a state of uncertainty and risk, of fragile adaptation to a past and present environment that the future cannot judge,” (35).

 

At first glance it seems Aramis is just like Victor Frankenstein’s creation. We can assume that people of Frankenstein’s time would not have gotten behind the idea of creating a new being, but it was something which was feasible at least in the context of Shelley’s story.  But Aramis is also comparable to the creation of the story of Frankenstein itself, it was born out of the times Shelley lived in, or her present environment, and though we now sit in a classroom many years later and discuss this novel it is perhaps unfair to look at it through the lens which our present (and Shelley’s future) has given us. 

Can you think of any inventions that if more detail had been given before their conception would have been turned down? 

Monsters are Created, Not Born

The biggest idea I took from reading the end of Frankenstein is that monsters are created, not born. Through inability to receive love and acceptance in society the monster is created. He is over and over again rejected and outcasted from the norms of society. Not one of the humans he encountered could look past his hideous nature and give him a chance. I think humans perceive largeness and ugliness with danger, and that is the underlying reason for their terror.

“One of the best of these I entered, but I had hardly placed my foot within the door before the children shrieked, and one of the women fainted. The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, until, grievously bruised by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons , I escaped to the open country and fearfully took refuge in a low, hovel, quite bare, and making a wretched appearance after the palaces I had beheld in the village.”(123).

Over and over again, he is attacked. This leaves him with one possible reason for existence, to be evil, to attack as they attacked him. To seek revenge on the man who created his ugly nature that leads him to exile of society. The monster tale is one of sadness, he is beaten down until he can take the pain and suffering no longer and acts on all he has left. Seek revenge.

The monster was not a monster in the beginning, he resembled an infant. He was a sponge to knowledge, wanting to learn and be accepted. The norms of society he could not fit, and to exile he was doomed.

“Was I, then, a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all men disowned? (141)

Did Frankenstein create the monster or did the normalities of society and human race?

The Science of Obsession

Frankenstine, by Mary Shelley begins with a detailed account of Frankenstine’s childhood and education. Being one who has seen renditions of the Frankenstine monster in many movies throughout my life, I enjoyed reading this side of the tale and gaining some insight into how the monster came to exist.

I believe that the reason Mary Shelley includes such a detailed history of Frankenstine’s childhood is in order for the reader to understand how he progressed to the point of creating such an atrocity against human nature.  The reader can see early on that as a boy Frankenstine is of above average intelligence especially for his age.  He is interested in the ancient art of alchemy and philosophy, although he learns they have been proven false in many ways by modern science.  In his studies, he seems to be particularly interested in the ancient pursuit of the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life, which I believe was included to foreshadow Frankenstine’s future obsession with creating life and stopping death.

In my opinion, the most monumental event in Frankenstine’s development is the death of his mother.  When his mother succumbs to scarlet fever and dies, Frankenstine’s thirst for a way to conquer death intensifies. Once Frankenstine begins studying at the University of Ingolstadt, he was free to explore his scientific ideas even further.  Under the supervision of Professor M. Waldman, Frankenstine’s obsession began to grow. This was apparent when he began working in the laboratory for countless hours.  His dedication to his work can be seen when he says, “and soon became so ardent and eager, that the stars often disappeared in the light of morning whilst I was yet engaged in my laboratory” (29).  Frankenstine’s initial eagerness and excitement about science quickly turns to a dangerous obsession when he discovers a way of animating lifeless matter.

I feel that the author uses Frankenstine’s childhood as a way to demonstrate how a seemingly happy and well off child can become corrupted by an obsession with an idea.  Frankenstine begins to ignore the people who care about him most, such as his father, best friend Clerval, and Elizabeth.  Frankenstine allows his work to consume him saying, ” I wished, as it were, to procrastinate all that related to my feelings of affection until the great object, which swallowed up every habit of my nature, should be completed” (33).  This quote shows the final transformation of Frankenstine from the loving son and friend, to an obsessed scientist focused only on his experiment and personal success.  Although some of the chapters dealing with Frankenstine’s childhood are somewhat dull and were difficult to read, I believe they allow the reader to relate to Frankenstine and to try to understand his transition from such a happy childhood to a destructive adulthood.

As for the scene with the creation of Frankenstine’s monster, I was somewhat disappointed with the lack of detail.  I feel that the author focuses on the personal affect that the work has on Frankenstine and his relationships, while avoiding the gritty details of the experiment he is performing.  I  did enjoy the scene when the monster first awakes and Frankenstine snaps out of his obsessive state and becomes horrified at what he has created.  I feel that this scene showed how losing oneself in an idea can lead to devastating consequences.

Question for the class: What do you believe began Frankenstine’s obsession with creating life?