Critical Annotated Webliography by Melody Chan

Question 3
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussion of recent technologies.


As nowadays technologies advanced rapidly, the relationship between human and sciences has become inseparable. Does this kind of relationship can assist the development of human life or brings out crisis to the society? This question will be examined based on the five articles below.

From “[1]Frankenstein of the Future” by Alisa Burns, the writer claimed that if human cannot realize the potential threats came from the development of technology, human world will be manipulated by the advanced technology some days. Burns used the monstrous scientist, Victor who created Frankenstein as an example. Victor was proud of his success of creating Frankenstein initially, his creation brought out limitless catastrophe and terror in the end. It was thought that the failure of Victor was a result of the ambition of tracing sciences. Nowadays, the enlargement of technology has contained the ability of reshaping human life. In this case, the author criticized that if the urge of tracing sciences cannot be control, human leading position over machines will be in reverse. Besides, Burns cited another terrible possibility that if machines contain the ability to think and learn. Frankenstein became a threat to Victor since it started to do thinking, the writer thought that when machines are able to do so, crisis will be brought out to human life.

Though Frankenstein is created by different parts from different corpses with the combination of sciences, it can be defined as human or non-human? In our culture, the most difference between human and technological product is the identity of human is constructed by one’s ability to think, learn and process complex thoughts (Frankenstein of the Future). When the proportion of science invading human life deeper and deeper and it contains the ability to think as well as human, the result is whether human manipulate technology or vice versus? The problems of manipulation and human identity are the discussions of recent technologies which brought out from the myth of Frankenstein.


The article “[2]Countering the Frankenstein Complex” from Lee McCauley is examining some scholars and society’s response to the fear of intelligent robots will destroy human world. This fear is always come from the sci-fi stories like the story of Frankenstein. The writer cited several savants like Ray Kurzweil, Kevin Warwick, and Hans Moravec who claim that there is a possibility of artificial intelligence replaces human. On the other hand, McCauley argued that robots contain no reason and ability to destroy humanity. He mentioned that the reason of highly intelligence can manipulate human population only if they can vastly design and manufacture by itself. The statement of robot’s evolution can only be happened in this way. McCauley thought that the cost of producing one highly intelligence is very high, to have an easier and convenient life, the application of smart enough device is satisfactory. In addition, there is no need for human being to manufacture a robot that contains the ability to reproduce on its own. In other words, the writer believed that the terror raised from those sci-fi stories is just an element to create an exciting story. Moreover, it is claimed that there is still a possibility human being will turn into extermination but not the reason of artificial intelligence.

As the discussion of recent technology always haunts by the topic of human and human culture will be destroyed by highly intelligence, this article brought out that the potentiality of the occurrence of this scenario is very low. Fear and terror brought out by the myth of Frankenstein is just an attractive element used to entertain audiences. The article showed a different perspective when comparing with Alisa Burns’s essay, which can make a comparison of different angles during analyzing.


In “[3]Technology and its Dangerous Effects on Nature and Human life as Perceived in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer”, Damyanov used Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer to explore the influence of technologies on human life. The essay examined the dependent relationship built between human and sciences as technologies have had a great influence in the human society. The writer claims that the rapid development of science will affect our universal view as well as our own status. This fear is came from the story of Frankenstein: "Remember that I have power; ... I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master..." (Frankenstein. 1992. P.162). This brought out that human more depended to technologies, more human nature will be destroyed.

Human’s dependency of nowadays technologies has become a hot topic in discussion of technology. The problem became an anxiety of the society as human identity, nature and moral issues are also affected. The source cited that this kind of fear is brought by Frankenstein in a very beginning which showed that the story contained a great impact on contemporary discussion of sciences and the development of advanced technologies.


Dr. Joan Slonczewski’s “[4]Human Cloning: Stem Cells and Human Cloning: The Postmodern Prometheus” believed that cloning human is just quite similar to the case of Franken-science in the 19th century. In this article, he examined the society’s response to human cloning as technology has been mostly advanced when comparing with the previous centuries. It provided the history of reproductive technologies, and pointed out that this kind of technologies is quite well-known that over the social expectation. The source also told that Franken-science is not a myth but can be performed through contemporary technology. Human conception of human cloning and the response from moral and political issues were other important examinable aspects in the paper.

A certain parts of the narrative explored the reverberation of human cloning in moral and political issues. On the other side, it revealed a discussion of the acceptation of human cloning and Franken-science as the former comprised a more advanced technology if compared with the one in 19th century. This article brought out a perspective that human needed the reproductive technology and feared about it at the same time. The discussion of the dependency of technologies is appeared once again.


Daniel Chandler examined the relationship between imagination and fear which presented in science fiction in the article “[5]Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears-The pendulum of hopes and fears”. He pointed out that science fiction mainly directed our gaze to the dependency of machines usually. “Moral dilemmas in science fiction are typically concerned with the misuse of technology (especially by the military, politicians or industrialists) rather than with technology itself being problematic.” (Daniel Chandler, Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears) This revealed that it is the responsibility of human rather that the technology itself. The author also cited some examples of authors that who supported “pre=technological” existence. The article claimed that sci-fi always applies technophobia to its story. On the other hand, it pointed out optimism or pessimism split cannot be neglected in this genre.

This narrative tended to explore the adaptation of human to technological environment. On one side, it quoted most science fictions brought out the signal of fearing contemporary technologies will become a threat of human nature. On the other side, it pointed out that misuse of technologies were the responsibility of human in fact.



[1]Burns, A. “Frankenstein of the Future.” Washington State University (2008). 5 March 2009. http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html.

[2]McCauley, Lee. “Countering the Frankenstein Complex”University of Memphis. 4 March 2009 http://www-robotics.usc.edu/~tapus/AAAISpringSymposium2007/submissions/aaai_ss_07_id06.pdf.

[3]Damyanov, Orlin. “Technology and its Dangerous Effects on Nature and Human life as Perceived in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer” 4 March 2009 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html.

[4]Slonczewski, Joan. “Stem Cells and Human Cloning: The Postmodern Prometheus. In The Kenyon Observer and in Analog: Science Fiction and Fact”Kenyon College. 4 March 2009 http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap14/clone.html#top.

[5]Chandler, Daniel. “The Portrayal of Technology in Literature and Film: Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears-The pendulum of hopes and fears”4 March 2009 http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/SF/sf02.html.