To me, one of the most interesting things the science fiction genre allows us to speculate on is the relationship between humans and technology. I think we generally tend to look upon technology as inherently “good,” in that it leads to increased efficiency and convenience in our every days lives and in society as a whole. Science fiction writers often approach technology with skepticism, presenting us with a world in which scientific knowledge has been used to create technologies that have a negative impact on humanity. Even if not intended for “evil,” these technologies eventually lead to our suffering or demise, forcing us to question whether technological innovation is always a good thing. Frankenstein and “When It Changed” offer two disparate views – both of which make us question the benefits of technology.
In both narratives, scientific progress comes in new forms of procreation. Technology subtracts the need for human sexual intercourse between a male and female in order for procreation to occur. The characters instead employ methods of technologically-enhanced procreation that are met with skepticism. Frankenstein gives life to his monster (using somewhat mysterious methods and tools) to the extreme detriment of his own sanity and familial relationships. Janet and Katy give life through the “merging of the ova” (p. 4), a method that is viewed as “unnatural” by the male visitors and leads to a society that is “missing something” (p. 5).
The inception and outcomes of these methods are quite distinct. Victor’s creation of the monster is asexual and his suffering so alienating that the reader cannot help but see the negative impact of Victor’s technological innovation. He watches family members die and succumbs to maniacal inner suffering, wavering between periods of grave depression and happiness, as a result of his creation. Shelley alludes to Godwin’s expectations of scientific progress and the “tendency of technology to reduce human’s reliance on each other” in her description of Victor’s alienation (p. 83).
Conversely, Janet and Katy share a strong familial bond. They beget children through a reproduction technique that uses genetic material from each parent (even if it does not necessarily require sexual intercourse). The results, even though viewed as unnatural and unsustainable by the male visitors, are overwhelmingly good. Janet, Katy, and their children lead a presumably fulfilling and happy life together until the men arrive. Russ does not meet technology with the same skepticism as Shelley, or at least as some of Shelley’s influences such as Godwin. Technology in Russ’s story leads to a feminized and arguably utopian society.
Both stories present a complicated view of technology. Does either suggest that technology is inherently good or bad, or that it’s simply complicated and contingent on human behavior? What lessons could we learn from either of these stories as we grapple with the social implications of reproductive technology today?
