Contrasting the Role of Science in Works of Horror by Shelly and Lovecraft Victor Wall
Science has fundamentally changed daily life. Its impacts are seen technologically, socially, and religiously. These changes can be observed in literary works. This capstone project will analyze the circumstances and influences of notable horror authors Mary Shelly, and H. P. Lovecraft in relation to science. In particular, the project will compare Shelly’s first and second major novels ( Frankenstein and The Last Man), to two of Lovecraft’s short stories( “Cool Air” and “Herbert West, Reanimator”). This analysis takes a direct focus towards specific scientific innovations during the time of publication, the author’s reaction, and their overall assessment of science. Though horror authors by trade, the conclusions and projections drawn from examining these works exhibit further connections found in other sources of media. Namely, it can explain the recursive process behind the development of technology, and the science fiction that influences it.
Shelly’s work proposes a glimpse towards the Romantic future, with its respective sprit empowered by the representative forces of science. Lovecraft’s by contrast, depicts a reality where, defined by science, the self-same spirit that created it is stifled, eroded, helpless against a world that has revealed the irrelevance of spirit, both in its past and its present. Where Shelly sees hope, Lovecraft sees horror. Both, in turn, see the respective technologies of their age as a jumping off point.
The innovations of Shelly’s time were outstanding on their own, but equally as significant in their connection to the future of science. The study of electricity’s role in the human body was first demonstrated through Galvanic tests. The process, which involved applying an electric current to a cadaver’s limbs, results in their temporary animation, twitching and thrusting as the muscles spasm. This image stuck with Shelly (SOURCE), and formed the backbone of Frankenstein’s creation, albeit in a more mystical engagement. This attitude was not uncommon amongst early practitioners of science, whose lines between the occult and the ‘rational’ were not yet fully formed. The recent upheaval caused by the Scientific Revolution a century before had suborned traditional Greek studies, replacing them with the models of Sir Isaac Newton. Newton’s work was theological as well as scientific, having attempted to analyze biblical dates in one of Calculus’ first applications. Such sudden shattering of a near two thousand year old monopoly, coupled with seemingly miraculous breakthroughs in medical science (vaccination amongst them), led a drifting populace eager for more of this new way to organize existence, and an exclusive privilege.
Where Shelly had first tasted the possibility of science, Lovecraft emerged in its glut. The scientific method had been codified and commercialized, then adopted en masse. That which was considered most suitable was implemented, and innovations such as the cotton gin, the spinning Jenny, and replaceable parts lead to an increasingly industrialized society, at the cost of regional identities. Air conditioning, despite its aesthetic benefits, was regarded as some as a tool for homogenization, helped in no small part due to its integration with many other ‘intrusive’ aspects of modern culture. In “The End of the Long Hot Summer: The Air Conditioner and Southern Culture.”, Raymond Arsenault elaborates that, “ It was through the movie house that air conditioning entered the mainstream way of life.” (Arsenault, 1984.). During this time, many of the ‘darling’ discoveries of science, such as x-rays, were also discovered to have harmful effects on their users. Marie Curie, a pioneer in studies of radioactivity, eventually died of pernicious conditions caused by exposure to radiation.
These scientific innovations serve as a backdrop for both Shelly and Lovecraft’s works. The predominate difference between Lovecraft and Shelly, however, is one of attitude towards human ability in the face of the scientific world. As a Romantic writer, Shelly takes a broadened view towards the human spirit and condition. The slow development of science, sparked by nascent experiments with electricity, and its emergence as a social phenomenon painted a picture of the natural world finally making its way into human hands. Consequentially, Shelly’s conclusions of science render its practitioners superhuman, the best and worst of humanity magnified, through the lens of a newfound ability. The word ‘God’ is mentioned twenty nine times in Frankenstein, almost half of the (sixty-one) times that ‘power’ does, and the same amount as ‘Science’.
One could argue Shelly would support that in order to survive plagues and floods as defining events, science would need to be fully embraced. In The Last Man, the eponymous figure survives his situation, not by faith or fortune, but through the power of inoculation, once more triumphing over nature. This connection was of particular importance, given that nature was a primary symbol of Revolutionary France, a lifestyle directly at odds with Shelly’s . As Lee Sterrenburg states in “The Last Man: An Anatomy in Failed Revolutions”, “… The revolutionaries of the 1790s regarded nature as a helpful, benevolent ally, who… demanded a “universal regeneration” of the realm” (Sterrenburg, 1978). The scientific spirit counters this external determinant. Doctor Frankenstein was not a great or evil man due to his pursuit of science, science is what allowed him to amplify his natural talents towards greatness, and his natural flaws towards evil. His character, so shaped by his childhood experiences, had lingered dormant until, catalyzed, he set his project into motion. This attitude holds true in Frankenstein’s creation, a product of ‘pure’ science. Shelly depicts a specimen at physical perfection, with the emotional and mental range of a young god. This, she imposes, is what is possible with the peaks of science. Man, in Shelly’s mind, has gained the ability to tread in the realm of the divine. Will humanity rise towards the occasion, and amplify our natural qualities? Shelly argues that science enables humanity to reach its fullest potential, for good and for ill. Lovecraft, by contrast, answers the question with a resounding “No”. Science, rather than draw out the pinnacles of human behavior, instead alienates and suppresses it. A product of a culture steeped in industrial change, and witness to the worst of science, culminated by the terrors of World War One, he stands at a position to witness the outcome of such behavior. Thomas Hull indicated in his article, “H.P. Lovecraft, a Horror in Higher Dimensions” that “Lovecraft’s cosmic horror was thus achieved through devices that would, he hoped, feel completely foreign and unknown to the reader.” (Hull, 2006). Science, as used by Lovecraft, inevitably makes its practitioners inhuman. Where Doctor Frankenstein was elevated by science, Doctor Munoz in “Cool Air” is shackled by it. Despite his revolutionary procedure life extension, he is crippled and impotent, left dependent on outsiders to sustain himself at a facsimile of his original self, in an increasingly untenable manner. As his body disintegrates, he is forced to “feed the refrigerating machine till he could keep the temperature as low as 34 or 40, or even 28 (degrees).” (Lovecraft, 1928.). By the story’s end, a once-brilliant surgeon is reduced to a literal stain on the carpet; the science- specifically, the air conditioner- that had extended his life for eighteen years finally turning against him, and letting nature take its course. Lovecraft’s Herbert West, in his engagement of forbidden research of re-animating the dead, becomes increasingly desperate and depraved towards this pursuit of perfection, ruining his health, wealth, and sanity in an effort to cheat nature throughs science. Unlike Frankenstein, these efforts are ultimately in vain, with the would be reanimated destroyed by West, his companions, the authorities, and, ultimately, each other. West rejects the necessity of the divine to life, stating that, “ Holding with Haeckel that all life is a chemical and artificial process…”, and, further “… the so-called ‘soul’ is a myth.” (Lovecraft, 1928) His repulsive behavior engages , in Lovecraft’s mind, the worst of the scientific process is engaged, a “… purely chemical…” existence, slave to the whims of inhuman proceedings. Lovecraft’s humanity is no match for the forces that act beyond it, but neither can they attempt to seize that force for themselves. To do so risks degradation beneath that of the most base animal. Whereas Shelly was speculative, organizing her stories as a projection of future scientific breakthroughs, Lovecraft was reactionary, organizing his stories as direct responses to technological changes of the era. In doing so, Lovecraft’s message was clear: There are doors we should not open, and woe betide the one who tries. Shelly’s world of science was filled with ill-defined opportunity. Early experiments with electricity promised further understanding of both the natural world and the human body. Vaccinations promised a future without the once-constant threat of disease. This gray area stimulated the mind, and propelled optimism in its ignorance. There was nothing that could not seem to be done, and any one had the potential to do it. Shelly’s life was developed by an era of significant social ramifications. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was an early social activist, agitating for change in this ‘new’ era. Shelly herself ran away from the life that had bound her so. Lovecraft’s world, by contrast, was one ravaged by the effects and changes brought upon by science. Already fundamentally altered due to the industrial revolution, the scientific approach of World War One left humanity reeling from the worst excesses of ‘rational’ warfare. These underlying disruptions were further aggravated by Lovecraft’s move to New York, a highly urbanized area, with a severely altered technological, cultural, and geographic location than the traditional New England Puritan lifestyle he had been so accustomed to. These experiences represented and aggravated Lovecraft’s depiction of technology, steeped in a post-war market. The horrors of war were quickly whiplashed by the raging activities of the roaring twenties, and New York was a prime ground for it. This understanding has been noted, as Lovecraft’s analysis spans both contemporary and classical scholars. Scott Meyer notes Lovecraft’s particular focus on the moral effects brought on by such changing times, as outside developments began to grind against traditional paradigms. “Lovecraft”, he states, “ was effectively able to tap into the helplessness that comes from an obsession with seemingly capricious fate.” (Meyer, 2019). Despite this, both Shelly and Lovecraft remain selective in their works. It is not all of science that poses a threat, only the pieces contained within their worldview. In The Last Man, Shelly views warfare as a significant, but not catastrophic threat to humanity, never considering that an artificial disaster could be just as debilitating as a natural one. Lovecraft, for all his fears about the state of x-rays, radiation, and the proliferation of apartments, has no problem with the telephone. This is exhibited by his use of the telephone as everyday life in his literary works such as Herbert West, not a focus of horror. It is this speculation that defines and drives scientific progress, as it informs an individual’s frame of reference. This, in turn, spurs on the development of scientific paths with such a perspective in mind. Shelly’s Frankenstein captured the minds of the scientific and social community, both for medicine and electricity. It was so influential that more than a century later, Lovecraft was inspired to write “Herbert West, Reanimator”, based on the course of medical development. With further knowledge of cadaver decay, and an understanding of the limits of medical science, West’s creations were depicted not as miracles, but flawed transgressions. Lovecraft, too, outlined many fears that would eventually stalk contemporary science fiction and first contact protocols, outlining concerns of creatures beyond visible light in “From Beyond”. In further understanding the relationships between these paths and their creative works, the better scientific progress can be understood, predicted, and developed.
WORKS CITED:
Hull, Thomas. “H.P. Lovecraft: a Horror in Higher Dimensions.” JSTOR, 2006, www.jstor.org/stable/25678597.
Joshi, S.T. “Why Michel Houellebecq Is Wrong about Lovecraft’s Racism.” JSTOR, 2018, www.jstor.org/stable/26868554. Lovecraft , Howard Phyllis. "Cool Air" by H. P. Lovecraft, 1928, www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/ca.aspx.
Meyer, Scott/ “Diabolists and Decadents: H. P. Lovecraft as Purveyor.” JSTOR, 2019, www.jstor.org/stable/26868584.
Sharret, Cristopher. “The Haunter of the Dark: H. P. Lovecraft and Modern Horror Cinema.” Cineaste Magazine, 2015, www.cineaste.com/winter2015/haunter-of-the-dark-lovecraft.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. “Frankenstein.” The Project Gutenberg EBook of Frankenstein, by Mary Wollstonecraft (Godwin) Shelley, Project Gutenberg, 1818, www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. “The Last Man.” Gutenberg, Project Gutenberg, 9 May 2021, www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18247/pg18247.html. Arsenault, Raymond. “The End of the Long Hot Summer: The Air Conditioner and Southern Culture.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 50, no. 4, 1984, pp. 597–628. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2208474. Lauren Cameron. “Mary Shelley's Malthusian Objections in The Last Man.” Nineteenth-Century Literature, vol. 67, no. 2, 2012, pp. 177–203. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/ncl.2012.67.2.177.
Sterrenburg, Lee. “The Last Man: Anatomy of Failed Revolutions.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 33, no. 3, 1978, pp. 324–347. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2933018.