The Forbidden Planet - 1956 by Philip MacDonald

PRESENTATION

In 1956, Philip MacDonald, under the pseudonym of W.J. Stuart, published a novel that mixed the police investigation genre with the new space adventure genre.

What he got was a story that would inspire an original science fiction genre, centering on the adventures of military crews who must investigate the mysteries of the galaxy while at the same time avoiding falling victim to the many dangers that lurk beyond the stars.

I'm talking about the novel: 'Forbidden Planet'.

At this point many would like to tell me that it was the film of this same title that inspired this genre of science fiction, and even a famous TV fiction series called 'Star Trek'. And in fact this is true. It was not the novel, but the film, which with a profit of $2 million convinced Hollywood producers that the time had come to take advantage of public consensus.

So what merit did the novel have in the origin of stories of this genre? Perhaps, very little.

The mystery that surrounds the understanding of which science fiction work (the novel or the movie) has the merit of being the progenitor of this genre of stories and TV fictions is very intricate and, unfortunately, has the flavor of copyright infringement. Maybe I will publish a post later to explain the story in detail. In this post, however, I will focus on analyzing this novel for the merits it has in the history of science fiction literature and, believe me, its merits are many.

'Forbidden Planet' is a novel that after almost seventy years still manages to excite the reader, accustomed to space stories of all types. Its scientific verisimilitude has not yet been surpassed and the narrative style is emotionally intense and suitable for the narrative standards of any era you want to read it.

ANALYSIS

The science fiction theme on which the entire novel is based is that of a utopian civilization with a highly technological system of civil life.

It is the myth of mental power shared among the inhabitants of a planet, a standard of living thanks to which it is possible to achieve anything, satisfy any desire, it is enough to be able to imagine it.

Allowing this mental power to give material form to ideas is a vast and colossal machine that spans the entire planet and takes the energy it needs to function from the heart of the planet itself: its incandescent core.

A perfect machine, capable of functioning forever, a prodigy of technology, the culmination of a technological progress that lasted thousands of years and which places its creators, the Krell, at the peaks of the technological capacity of the galaxy.

But as in every story, a medal, however precious it may be, always has its downside.

With the moral of this story, the myth of Icarus comes to mind, who, forgetting not to fly too close to the Sun, soared up, up above the clouds and even higher, until the wax that kept his feathers attached to his His arms melted away, his feathers fell away, and he fell to the ground, thus meeting his end.

In this story, the danger to be kept at bay is the subconscious of the mind.

The subconscious is the place where passions, fears and aggression take shape and in certain moments of mental activity re-emerge at an intermediate level of consciousness, which we all experience when we dream.

It is easy to understand, then, that a mind trained to use a machine capable of materializing all its ideas, if the mind visualized emotionally irrational ideas that come from its subconscious, would give this machine instructions to materialize even the irrational 'monsters' that they take shape in the subconscious, scattering them along the streets of cities and allowing them to carry out all kinds of atrocities and destruction.

This, in fact, is exactly what happened in the prestigious civilization of the Krell, giving rise to an apocalyptic event of destruction that engulfed the civilization of that people into the oblivion of history in the space of one night.

As a science fiction theme, that's a pretty strong topic, isn't it?

A very strong argument from a philosophical point of view that the narrator of this novel decided to tell using a military narrative action.

His choice to use a crew of space soldiers, accustomed to tackling problems with military professionalism, is in stark contrast to the distinctly intellectual context where the problem of the danger of the powers of the mind takes shape.

This contrast of contexts, the military one and the ethical and psychological one, is what makes the narrative action of the novel extremely suggestive.

The reader is constantly led to alternate reasoning of utopian philosophy with reasoning of military tactics and operating procedures of life on board an interplanetary cruiser, thus entering into a perspective that takes shape in his mind and where the incompatibility of these two kinds of reasoning involve him mentally.

A constant use of gestural details and expressive phrases visually and psychologically create a social environment made up of real people, as if they were actors in a film, who come to life before the reader's eyes. This narrative technique is not only useful for giving realism to the narrative, but also for causing amazement and anxiety in him at certain moments of the story, exactly as if he were the audience in a cinema hall.

Furthermore, it is important to explain another advantage in putting military discourse in dialectical juxtaposition with that of high psychological philosophy.

During the narrative action the reader witnesses a progressive reversal of power relations between the PRACTICAL character of military reasoning versus the THEORETICAL character of philosophical reasoning, when the object of philosophical reasoning turns out to be much more dangerous and overwhelming than the military themselves , involved in the story told.

MacDonald's merit is to have resorted to this narrative invention, where the military is entrusted with the task of understanding the dramatic intellectual error of the Krell, while the fruit of their alien intelligence is falling on the frightened, but courageous, earthlings.

Completeness of Information

As far as the parameter of completeness of information is concerned, this novel is extremely rich.

A great prologue informs the reader about the space navigation technology used by the Earthlings of this story, obtaining with this type of information a scientific verisimilitude rarely achieved by other novels or films of the same genre.

The consistency with which MacDonald describes the main characters throughout the novel also deserves special praise. He not only tells us who they are, what, when, where and why they do what they do, but he also describes to us the way in which they carry out their actions and say their sentences.

To prove what I said, I prepared a short profile of each of the main characters, obtained thanks to the information that the writer put in the novel. The author of the novel also went so far as to describe the character and typical mood with which each character experiences his adventure, with a precision that even allowed me to draw a pencil portrait of each one.

Professor Edward Morbius

Professor of linguistic sciences. He is the survivor of the interplanetary expedition that left with the 'Bellerophon' spaceship 20 years earlier. He has learned the secrets of Krell culture and technology thanks to his skills as a linguist. He is driven by a great thirst for knowledge, but this is also his flaw, in fact he is jealous of the culture of the Krell, which he alone has managed to understand and which he has taken possession of.

Altaìra

She is the daughter of the professor. Morbius and was born on the planet Altair 4. She. She is just over nineteen years old and she does not know the social life that exists on Earth, just as she would have learned to know an Earthling girl of her own age. In fact, Altaìra is very naive and has the personality of a thirteen-year-old teenager. however she has many friends, they are land animals who kept her company while she was growing up. For this reason she has a sunny and trusting character towards others.

Medical Major C. X. Ostrow

He is around 60 years old, he is a widower and nothing now ties him to the Earth. He is not a professional space navigator, but he thought of pursuing his profession as a doctor by joining the military corps of spacemen to give new opportunities to his life and make himself useful to humanity beyond the stars. He has a character who is very open to dialogue with his fellow adventurers and at the same time is amazed by the wonders of technology and the cosmos, with the typical attitude that every man of science has.

Captain John J. Adams

He is the commanding officer of the spaceship and is just over 30 years old. He is energetic and authoritative in maintaining discipline; he requires maximum commitment from his crew but is always attentive to every single useful clue to understand how to successfully complete the mission of the entire team of which he is commander. Although he is known to have a reserved nature, with people he respects, he is unexpectedly friendly.

Lieutenant Jerry B. Farman

He is the spaceship's navigator and co-pilot. He too, like all the crew members, is young, in fact he has just turned 30. He has a very friendly and witty character, sometimes he even manages to make fun of his colleagues, especially beginners, like Medical Major Ostrow. In addition to being a valid first-officer of the spaceship, he has a reputation as an expert seducer and in every space-port he always tries to woo some woman who comes within his reach.

Lieutenant Alonzo Quinn

His role is that of 'Chief Engineer Officer' on the starship. He is the third pilot on the command bridge and is also responsible for operating the spaceship's analytical detection instruments used for the investigation mission. Like all engineers, he is very precise, perhaps too precise, and for this reason the rest of the crew affectionately nicknamed him 'Lonny'.

Chief Petty Officer Zachary Todd

He is the boatswain of the spaceship. He has the task of maintaining discipline during the execution of the commander's commands and of verifying that all directives regarding life on board are applied according to the regulations. He has a friendly nature, which will help Doctor Ostrow greatly to endure the annoying safety procedures required for the acceleration and deceleration moments of the spaceship during the journey. Zachary won't make the doctor feel like he's nothing more than a 'rookie' to them on that space cruiser.

Cook on the spaceship: 'Di Rocco'

He is a junior starshipman. By being a cook on the spaceship he takes some liberties that the other crew members, more controlled by the boatswain, do not dare take. In fact, Di Rocco, on his own initiative, comes into contact with Professor Morbius' robot, provoking the anger of the commander, who immediately formalizes a warning note to be recorded on the spaceman's service status.

Scientific verisimilitude

The arguments that give scientific verisimilitude to the story told in the novel are basically three:

1) History lesson of interplanetary space navigation

2) Humans employ gravitational-driven spaceships

3) Freudian Psychology explains the problem of narrated facts

At the beginning of the novel, in the prologue, there is a summary of the history of Earth's exploration into space. It is said that it all began in 1995, when the first Space Station was put into orbit around the Earth, a time when jet-propelled missiles were still used. The lesson ends with the explorations that starting from 2350 allowed Earthlings to explore distant star systems. In this case, the Earth ships used Q.G. pusher engines. 'Quantum-Gravitum' which were mounted in the center of the spaceship, and therefore the terrestrial spaceships had the shape of 'flying saucers'.

This historical premise is enriched by the names of future physicists and by technical explanations on the extent to which time is dilated for astronauts who travel beyond the speed of light, leading them to return to Earth with an age of only one year, while their peers are twenty older.

In this history lesson of future space exploration it is clear to recognize A. Einstein's theory, a theory that will determine many things that will be part of the novel.

The second argument that lends scientific verisimilitude is the type of spaceship described in the story.

Philip MacDonald abandons jet thrust for his interplanetary spaceship and is right to do so.

In fact, the spaceships mentioned in the story have the shape of flying saucers and use GRAVITATIONAL thrust, just as we would expect from extraterrestrials.

What news is this? Earthlings who build flying saucers?!

Well yes: It's exactly like that.

In MacDonald's novel, the Earthlings are much more advanced than they are in the famous TV series 'Star Trek', where the Enterprise is propelled by external cylindrical thrusters in which it is still necessary to resort to atomic fission to give rise to the physical phenomenon of the curvature of Space-Time. A truly dangerous technological system, due to the emission of radioactivity, for which Mr. Spock will pay the price.

Instead, in the spaceship designed by MacDonald there are no harmful emissions; indeed, it is possible to extract one of the engines, the auxiliary one, to make it work as a radio pulse generator to send interstellar messages.

Maybe the writer's imagination flew too far? Maybe. But everything is consistent with the narrative artifice. What matters is the description of the technical and engineering work that involves the spacemen on the alien planet to set up an enormously powerful transmitter. Not like in some stories, where you just push a button and the message reaches the other side of the galaxy in real time.

The third scientific topic on which the novel is based is the most important, that is, Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory.

In Freudian theory there is consciousness, which is the part of the mind of which the person is aware.

Then there is the subconscious (also called ID or ES), which is the part hidden from consciousness. The subconscious acts independently of consciousness and silently manages cognitive symbols, attributing positive or negative values to them, based on the instincts that move in the subconscious.

And again, there is the preconscious, which in the novel is nicknamed 'middle mind'.

The preconscious, in Freudian theory, is a border area. It is almost the active consciousness, but it is subjected to the logical activities of the unconscious and welcomes its manifestations, very often in a passive way, especially during the hours of sleep. It is, in other words, the place where dreams take shape.

MacDonald's brilliant idea of linking the educational morality of his science fiction novel to a psychological theory allowed him to make it indisputably true and real from a moral point of view, and not just an entertainment story, putting on paper the problem of limit possible future uses and technological applications of the power of the mind.

Creativity in imagination

Science fiction fiction is the product of the fusion of scientific thinking and creative fictional thinking.

However, as I explained on the 'Sci-fi Issues' page of this blog, there are different types of science fiction as there are numerous types of fictional creative thinking. It all depends on what type of creative fantasy thinking merges with scientific thinking.

This novel gives me the opportunity to explain with a practical example what I mean when I distinguish between the types of creative imaginative thoughts.

If in the parameter of scientific verisimilitude I have shown the three main science fiction topics that give the novel a scientific character, now here I am going to explain what type of creative thinking was used in each of the three aforementioned topics.

The historiographical argument that gives substance to the novel's premise is an example of 'historiographical verisimilitude'.

MacDonald's creative imagination made use of a very widespread practice among university professors, which is to distribute teaching compendiums to students to integrate the lesson with additional content.

It is in this need to simulate a didactic activity of erudition that the narrator finds all the useful elements to give, to the product of his imagination as a narrator, an aspect of historical truthfulness. So, in this case, MacDonald made use of his 'historical imagination'.

Historical imagination uses tools such as: the chronology of events marked by dates; mention the names of famous people; cite the sources from which the news is taken and their publication date; cite plausible but invented scientific theories or principles to give the impression of scientific reliability.

This type of historiographical tools, used with a historical method, allow us to produce a historiographic text credible enough to seem true. However, it is completely made up.

Therefore, creativity that is expressed with a rational method, simulating intellectual goals, belongs to the category of RATIONAL SCIENCE FICTION.

The engineering topic of spaceship technology gives rise to a good part of the novel's narrative inventions, thus contributing to its 'technological verisimilitude'.

The shape of the Earth spaceship, the type of engine used, Dr. Ostrow's considerations regarding the experience of traveling beyond the normal laws of space-time, are all narrative inventions that originate thanks to the use of 'technological fantasy' or technological imagination.

Technological imagination is what all engineers and inventors have. Leonardo da Vinci is an example of technological imagination and his inventions are the result of it.

Technological imagination is not the faculty of imagining machines that do not exist in reality and assuming that they can exist in narrative fiction.

To be clear, imagining that a galleon can fly in the sky thanks to a miracle of magic is not an example of technological fantasy, it's just fantasy.

Instead, imagine that that galleon, considered as small as a large boat, can fly because it is suspended in the air by an enormous hot air balloon, then yes, in this case it is a question of technological fantasy, because it imaginatively brings together the appropriate principles of technological sciences.

The technological science fiction narrative inventions present in the novel are not an example of technological creativity since they are based on invented principles of technology. However, these narrative inventions take on the character of technological culture because they imitate technological design principles that belong to real engineering sciences.

Therefore, creativity that is expressed with a rational method, simulating techincal goals, belongs to the category of TECHNOLOGICAL SCIENCE FICTION.

The psychological argument constitutes the heart of the problem around which the story told develops.

In this case, MacDonald does not create a made-up psychological theory that has medical verisimilitude. He uses precisely the 'authentic Freudian psychoanalytic theory' and builds his narrative invention on it, that of the Krell machinery to materialize the ideas of the mind.

In this case, the narrator's creativity continues to be a technological fantasy, due to the fact that his fantasy is applied where the story tell us that the Krell machinery confuses the conscious mental will with the subconscious mental will, which is expressed during the Krell's sleep.

In other words, the Freudian psychological argument only serves to explain a functional flaw in the technological invention of the aliens of the planet Altari-4.

So is it solely technological fantasy that MacDonald uses to write his novel?

Not just this.

In the novel, the alien people of the Krell are presented as a people who had reached the highest peaks of intelligence, despite this, however, they did not understand how the mind worked and, due to their ignorance, they used in a inappropriate way their wonderful invention, causing a planetary disaster, of which they are the only ones guilty.

The concept I have just expressed is the moral meaning that the narrator has constructed using his 'moral imagination' (or moral creativity).

Therefore, it is appropriate to say that this novel, considered in its entirety, develops a theme of MORAL SCIENCE FICTION, which includes the majority of utopian and dystopian fiction.

Moral meaning of the ending

Therefore, it is an ending in which the moral judgment of the entire novel converges; a novel, all in all, of moral science fiction.

The technological legacy of the Krell's fatal intellectual error is, ultimately, destroyed. The entire planet Altair-4 explodes, illuminating the starry night of thousands of worlds in the galaxy, a spectacle which planet Earth also witnesses.

As in every educational story, the natural order of things is re-established and the final 'catharsis' brings everyone's conscience, the characters, the reader and also the writer, back to a condition of positive hope towards the future.

A future told again by a university compendium for the students of Dr. - Professor A. G. Yakimara.

So, does the final conclusion of the novel, its final moral, lie precisely in this 'compendium of technological historiography'?

In short, what does Philip MacDonald want to tell us in his way of concluding the story?

Perhaps his message is a reminder that, no matter how powerful a civilization's technology may become, nothing is as valuable as the study of past history and the understanding of merits earned and mistakes made in the past.

When MacDonald published 'Forbidden Planet' only eleven years had passed since the two atomic explosions on the cities of Japan, causing, in addition to the victims, psychological and moral trauma in people all over the world.

Historiography is a precious resource to which the civil health of any people, of any technological level, is entrusted and it is no coincidence that the name of the professor of technological history cited by MacDonald has a decidedly Japanese assonance.

This name is entrusted with the task of expressing the final judgment.

Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus - 1818 by Mary Shelley

 

PRESENTATION

Let's be clear, the creature created by Victor Frankenstein IS NOT the stupid monster shown in films and popular iconography.

In Mary Shelley's novel the creature brought back to life using parts of human corpses is something completely different and, it may seem strange to those who have not read the novel, it is a true science fiction subject of the 21st century, that is, a theme that for us , human beings of the 21st century, still constitutes a bioethical dilemma that is difficult to resolve.

Even today we think of Phillip K. Dick's 1968 novel 'Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep', or Ridley Scott's 1979 film 'Blade Runner' as icons of the problem of the artificial creation of a human being.

But the author who first brought exactly this problem to the public's attention, when the science and medicine of the early 19th century had overcome the limits of muscle resuscitation, with Galvani's experiments with frogs, was the author of the novel Frankenstein.

I have no doubts about it.

What Mary Shelley accomplished in her most famous novel was to investigate the faculties of human consciousness in an attempt to define the biological origin of love towards people we admire and hatred towards people who have caused us pain.

This is a courageous introspection at the limits of neuroscience and psychoanalysis, taking as an example a mind that is reborn from death and is devoid of any memory of its previous life.

I was saying that it is a courageous introspection since the theme of artificial consciousness is taken to the limits of the mystical feeling of a creature that is fully aware of its creator, a feeling that is found, so to speak, in the soul of every human being.

But in this case does the author of the novel suggest that an artificial man also has a soul? An artificial soul that harbors feelings of veneration towards the human being who created it!?

Can an artificial conscience, the fruit of human ingenuity that brought what was dead back to life, look at the mystery of its existence and ask itself what substance it is made of and what the purpose of its life is?

Can he be able to appreciate the goodness of men as well as hate every single individual who reminds him of the rejection he suffered from his creator?

Is it ever possible that he could have the freedom of free will over his own feelings?

This is, therefore, the philosophical purpose of Mary Shelley's literary work, a story written with profound empathy towards every human being, to whatever condition he may belong, reasoning on the meaning of existence, thus telling the drama of the first 'replicant' in history of science fiction.

ANALYSIS

The narrative complexity of this novel is truly remarkable: there are three narrative voices, each with its own narrative action which develops its own theme, with its own problem to solve.

The first protagonist is Robert Walton, whose narrative action serves as a framework for the narrative of the other two protagonists.

R. Walton is entrusted with the final task of putting into practice the moral teaching that emerges from the story of the other two protagonists.

His narrative theme symbolizes the exploratory undertaking conducted in the interest of humanity and, therefore, to be completed heroically.

The second protagonist is Doctor Victor Frankenstein, whose narrative action enters into a dynamic and conflictual relationship with the third protagonist: his creature, brought back to life through an experiment in surgical and medical technology.

The third protagonist also carries out a narrative action that enters into a dynamic and conflictual relationship with Doctor Frankenstein, I'm talking about his creature.

To better understand the dynamic force of the mutual conflict between these two narrative actions, we can borrow the circular philosophical model of Eastern philosophy: Yin and Yang.

Frankenstein develops the theme of inventive life that persists with arrogant ambition in taking possession of biological laws to carry out feats of biomedical engineering in defiance of all bioethical morality.

The creature resurrected by the scientist develops the theme of contemplative life which with gratitude towards life respects its order with humility and joy, cultivating an intelligence for social philosophy for moral purposes.

As it is easy to see in these two definitions, the two mental orientations are exactly opposite and are irreconcilable.

Each of these two mental orientations develops a narrative action that enters into circular conflict with its opposite, without ever resolving with a positive solution, but only with the dramatic final outcome which will be witnessed by the first protagonist, the navigator R. Walton.

However, the complexity of this novel also involves the moral dimension.

Reading the confessions of Doctor Frankenstein's creature, one cannot help but think of comparing his brutal life to that of a dangerous multiple-homicidal brigand.

The complexity of this novel puts before us the probable point of view of a criminal who tries to justify himself following the sentence brought against him by civil laws. He finds in the injustices suffered the excuse for his hatred and violence against people, thus saving his soul from the final judgment of social morality.

The ambiguity of M. Shelley's purpose in giving meaning to his novel is difficult to resolve.

Perhaps, precisely in the circularity of the two narrative actions, the author wanted to present us with a dilemma in which she attempted to represent the origin of evil in society, carried out by human beings who may have had a personal history comparable to that of the creature and, therefore , more exposed to the moral weaknesses of conscience.

Perhaps, the novel's author's message is to imagine how much evil could arise from bringing into the world an artificial human conscience, repudiated by everyone for the reason of not being natural. In this I see the origin of the science fiction mythology of the 'replicant', an individual with human feelings but more exposed to contempt than those he sees as similar to him and, for this reason, devoted to indifference and oppression.

The Europe in which Mary Shelley lived, when she wrote this story, had just crossed the boundaries of bioethics, thus finally grasping the 'forbidden apple' of the tree at the center of Eden, the tree of knowledge of GOOD and of BAD, and it is evident that in this context, of the moral mythology of Western culture which has its most significant symbol in the forbidden tree of Eden, it is precisely a woman who warns the man of science, with all the force of this novel, to do not to eat from that fruit.

Completeness of information

Since in this novel there are narrative actions corresponding to three characters, the analysis of the parameter of completeness of information (relating to the 5 Ws) must be done for each of the three characters.

Robert Walton is a english man from a wealthy family who inherited the financial resources to set up an oceanographic expedition in search of the Northeast Passage, from the Arctic Sea to the Bering Strait and thus trace a polar route towards the Pacific Ocean. His undertaking takes place in an unspecified year of the 18th century.

Victor Frankenstein is a Swiss doctor of biological-medical sciences, who was able to study at the University of Ingolstad (Germany) and thus become an expert in the subject, thanks to his intense interest in discovering the secrets of life and the biological laws that regulate it, in order to to be able to use them ambitiously for the benefit of humanity.

Creature of Dott. Frankenstein: He is defined only in this way. We know nothing of its origin, apart from the fact that the anatomical parts of which it is composed were taken from different graves in the Ingolstad cemetery. He himself will say what he does, when, where and why in a confession made to his creator, Dr. Frankenstein.

However, although its true identity is never revealed, despite the film versions which say that its brain was that of a criminal, something which is kept silent in the novel, the story that the creature gives to its creator seemed similar to that that a son does to his father after a growth experience on a trip or in any other long-lasting challenging experience. At first, the creature shows satisfaction with the things it learns and confidence in its abilities. On the basis of this positive self-awareness he is able to plan his own future according to positive ethical principles of sharing the social values of human society.

He is even capable of leaving behind the trauma of having been rejected by his creator, the human being to whom he attributed the value of a father.

The problems arrive later, when the people from whom he had learned the virtues of social life violently reject him when he, aware of his physical diversity and his anomalous origin, tries to be accepted with the aim of living in harmony with They.

It is at this moment that the collapse in his conscience occurs and the faculties of appreciating human goodness are irremediably damaged, transforming all the love there was in him into visceral hatred against humanity.

The burning house where he had learned to love social life is the pivotal moment of the creature's moral transformation, from a gentle conscience to a criminal conscience.

Why am I talking about this moment in the 5 W parameter?

Because this is exactly the most important information in the entire novel. It is at this moment that the reader is informed as to why the creature becomes evil.

It is on this 'why' that the whole novel rests the reason that led it to be written. Conscience is never good or bad, but it is dynamic and adapts and reacts to the emotions and feelings that animate it. Telling a story where consciousness is described in this way means doing psychological investigative work. But this is a discussion that belongs to the next parameter of analysis.

Scientific verisimilitude

There is a lot of scientific verisimilitude in this novel, but not the kind of subject matter we would expect.

Doctor Frankenstein's feat of medical engineering heralds the narrative trend of 'replicants' and 'artificial organisms' widely described in the novels of the second half of the 20th century, yet there is not a single theoretical or practical indication in this novel on how to resuscitate a dead organism, nor on how to recompose parts of dead bodies to obtain a complete individual.

None of this is in this novel.

But that's what a 20th century science fiction writer would do.

Mary Shelley is a writer who lived between the 18th and 19th centuries, an era in which the Enlightenment had freed the conscience of citizens from the cultural canons of the Ancient Regime, where the patriotic morality of loyalty to the sovereign and the Church had to be respected.

With the Enlightenment, under the multiple humanistic impulses of Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, the conscience of European man can finally follow new paths of introspection of the soul without the conditioning of clerical morality.

It is for this reason that the real topic of interest in this novel is not the practical technique on how to create the artificial human creature but, rather, investigating the paths of human consciousness with an Enlightenment method and, in this case it is correct to say, with a scientific.

From the point of view of psychological sciences, the scientific verisimilitude present in this novel is impeccable; despite having been written many years before the popularization of the psychological theories known to us.

Yet, we must not forget to pay attention to one thing: the psychological problem will be a component that will constantly accompany the theme of artificial individuals told by science fiction.

So, what can we conclude from this analysis?

The novel 'Frankenstein' opens a narrative thread that will flourish starting from the 1940s, that of the 'replicants', 120 years in advance, and it does not do so by insisting on the technical-practical aspect, but rather by putting into clear all the psychological elements that would serve subsequent writers to give shape to the drama of being in the world as artificial people.

Creativity in Fantasy

It would be easy for someone to say that Mary Shelley did not prefer to tell about the resuscitation of a whole individual because this event would have forced her to face the problem of the soul. In fact, since it was a whole person, would or would not her soul return within him, abandoning either Heaven or Hell?

Instead, I am convinced that the writer's interest was to describe the origin of a consciousness 'ex novo' for the purposes of the development of history.

Therefore, the only way to obtain the formation of a consciousness without any connection with the previous life was, in the author's intentions, to imagine with his imagination that Frankenstein managed to put together many human body parts from different corpses. Only in this case, this narrative subject was the only logically acceptable solution for her.

Therefore, it is not wrong to say that Doctor Frankenstein's creature is the first example of artificial consciousness of an exclusively biological nature and devoid of any spiritual ontological properties.

Here Shelley's ambiguous allusion to the common religious language that attributes the name 'creator' to the Christian divinity is evident. In the same way, the artificial consciousness of the creature calls Doctor Frankenstein 'creator'.

Should we perhaps see in this narrative construction made up of moral, religious and scientific problems a form of creativity in the parameter of imagination?

Without a doubt it is a narrative construction that brings together many different topics in a very elegant and refined way, to the point of remaining in the reader's memory with a strong suggestion for his conscience.

This, therefore, is enough for me to say that yes, this is a remarkable display of creativity in imagination.

Meaning of the ending

As I have already said, the narrative actions of this novel are two: one linear and the other circular.

R. Walton's linear narrative action ends with his renunciation of finding the North-East passage, recognizing the importance of safeguarding the safety of his crew in the face of the dangers of death by freezing, if they had gone even further north in the cold waters of the Arctic.

The circular narrative action of Frankenstein and his creature ends with the death of both, after having recognized the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the natural order of things, which deserves respect from men and all its creatures , thus avoiding committing bioethical violations.

So, is this perhaps a resolving conclusion to the problems generated during the novel?

I can say yes only in the case of R. Walton's story.

As regards, however, the story of the creator and his creature, the ending is decidedly tragic and does not resolve either the sense of guilt that drove Frankenstein to madness, much less the murders committed by his creature.

If anything, the ending only serves to put an end to the circular and unsolvable dynamism of their two stories, a circularity that consumed them until their deaths; where the faults of one are to the detriment of the other who is, in turn, guilty of the pains of the first. Both are victims of this circularity of guilt and suffer from it to the point of madness.

But the thing that makes this ending so alienating for us, biologically natural human beings, is the fact that to find the complete solution to this circular conflict, between the human desire to dominate the laws of nature and the artificial creature's desire for revenge, turns out to be the creature itself who, no longer feeling hatred towards Frankenstein, now dead, once again showing the morally positive side of his conscience, implements the ultimate solution, that is, the destruction of his own body, as it is the proof of the possibility of subverting the natural order of terrestrial biology. An act of responsible conscience that goes beyond the boundaries of the common survival instinct and affirms, incontrovertibly, his existence as a spirit with free will.

In this statement of maximum will, the novel proves to be the progenitor of all science fiction about 'replicants'.

In this extremely moving moment, the creature's words remind us of Roy Batty's famous final monologue in 1979's Blad Runnes.

I end my analysis with selected parts from the final monologue of Frankenstein's creature, pronounced at the conclusion of the novel, which demonstrates an impressive similarity with the words spoken by the evil, and then repentant, dying 'replicant' of Blade Runner, a film made 161 years after the publication of novel by M. Shelley:

<<He [referring to V. Frankenstein] did not suffer even the thousandth part of the torment that tortured me in carrying out my deeds. An endless pride pushed me forward, while my heart was poisoned by remorse [...].

My heart was made to respond to love and sympathy [...]. Once upon a time my dreams were filled with visions of virtue, fame and joy. [...] But now sin has put me lower than the most despicable animal [...]. I have murdered good and harmless creatures, I have strangled innocents while they slept [...]. I condemned my creator to despair, the prototype of everything among men that is worthy of love and admiration.

Don't be afraid [addressing R. Walton], my work is almost done [...]: only my death is enough [...].

Light, passions, senses will disappear, and then I may find happiness.

[...] Now death is my only consolation [...].

I will triumphantly climb my funeral pyre, and I will exult in the torment of the flames that will devour me. The light of this fire will fade, my ashes will be scattered into the sea by the winds. My spirit will rest in peace and, even if it thinks, it will be differently.

Goodbye!. >>