The New Frankenstein
by James Schellenberg
Frankenstein was probably scary at one point, but the whole story has been worn down by repetition, robbed of its power and relegated to status as not much more than a pop culture gag. What would it take to resuscitate the cautionary note in the tale of a scientist? After looking at Scott Bakker's terrifying new book Neuropath, I would say: a few hints of what modern science is taking away from us.
In Mary Shelley's original conception, Frankenstein the scientist's worst sin was trying to take on godlike powers while remaining as human and frail as the rest of us. Nearly 200 years ago, that was a fairly prescient take on the kind of powers that science would take for itself. The story of the book has become a cliche though.
Another famous cautionary tale is Orwell's
1984, probably the fictional take that is closest to life in our modern surveillance society (maybe less so for us in Canada than in the States? is that another example of wishful thinking?). While
1984 feels like it cuts too close to the bone, it's more of an intellectual thing than a visceral jolt.
What if the next advance of science - rather than reanimating corpses or supporting a matrix of control - is an attack on our very notion of self?
That brings me around to Scott Bakker's
Neuropath, a book which focuses on the implications of recent research about the human brain. Strangely enough, we're at the point in our research in this area that new developments essentially add up to a horror story. Every cherished delusion is stripped away. Throw into this mix a serial killer who wants to teach society a lesson about living in the Great Illusion, and
Neuropath is one hell of a depressing book.
To briefly explain: the main character of
Neuropath, Thomas, is a professor whose colleague, Neil, worked for the American government in a black ops capacity then went rogue. Neil seems determined to prove that human consciousness is an illusion, a Great Illusion, and that manipulating the brain (with the tools supplied to him by the NSA) can trick the so-called "mind" into believing just about anything. For example, Neil kidnaps a porn star, removes the top of her skull, inserts various wires into her brain matter, then stimulates her pleasure centres (all of this broadcast to the FBI of course). Then he switches her pleasure and pain circuits, gives her a piece of broken glass, and watches her "pleasure" herself... while the camera is still rolling. Other victims do other unspeakable things, but when the specific signals are activated, they have no choice. What does that say about about personal choice or free will? Not much flattering, that's for sure.
So, sure, this is chilling stuff, along the lines of
Dexter but with a very pointed message of showing how science can potentially tear down our sense of self. All that said, I'm not sure what to do with this material. If you know that, for example, your love for your children is biologically programmed in by years of evolution, that it's not love in some platonic sense but the workings of a meat machine, easily turned on or off by a burst of electricity to a deep segment of the brain, what does that mean? Does it change anything? Should it?If knowing the "truth" about human behaviour leads to despair, how do you still get up in the morning?
Strangely enough, I was just thinking about this: what's the appropriate response by someone in a creative field to a pressing issue? More fiction of an escapist nature? That doesn't make much sense. I've mentioned
1984, but at least Orwell's cautionary tale was springing from a considerable collection of non-fiction writing and personal activism. As another modern example: is writing a book about climate change a good response? Science fiction fans sometimes like to pretend that they are preparing themselves for the future by reading their fetishistic little ditties about exploding spaceships and robot babes, which seems like a ghastly charade to me. Likewise
Wall-E. In that particular movie, the evil Buy N Large corporation has turned Planet Earth into a giant landfill.
Wall-E is of course produced by Pixar and Disney, and the merchandise spigots don't turn off there either. Bakker mentions in his afterword that we should prepare ourselves for the way that science will strip away our sense of free will and consciousness. Sure, sure, but is that even possible? (
This review makes the case that Bakker's point is pretty much impossible in fiction anyways.)
Neuropath is a bit of a departure for Bakker. I previously reviewed
the conclusion
of his
Prince of Nothing fantasy series here on the Gutter. It seems to
me that authors stick closer to one type of story than they used to -
or if anything, switch from science fiction to fantasy, or from any of
the above to young adult. Bakker goes in the opposite direction, from
epic fantasy to science fiction thriller, with a chilling, disturbing
work.
Neuropath gets a lot of comparisons to
Peter Watts' Blindsight: that's fairly apt as far as I can tell, and as I've said about Peter Watts in my review of
Blindsight,
I'm glad that someone has written this kind of a pure story, with no
concessions for the audience. That's not to say a book like this one has becomes my personal favourite!
Tags: dystopia , Frankenstein , futurism , George Orwell , horror , mad science , Mary Shelley , murder , Peter Watts , science , Scott Bakker , serial killers , thrillers
the book you mention, neuropath, reminds me of exploitation films and the very serious narrative frames they have. you know, the creators ostensibly aren't creating anything titillating, but just educating and warning the public who need to know what science is taking from us. and the audience is there not out of titillation, but out of an assumed and unquestionable sense of duty. but, still, we end up watching or reading about a woman "pleasuring" herself with broken glass.
and who can blame us-- or the author-- if we're just "meat machines?"
—Carol Borden
Weirdly, I didn't see the exploitation angle while I was reading it. The cover of "science" is pretty strong all the way along. I wonder if there is any way to tell this story at all?
—James Schellenberg
I don't have cable right now so I'm rewatching old shows and movies. A lot of them are animated. Such is my way. I'd like to have a nobler reason for rewatching them--something like when James 
Let's say you're the newly-sentient internet. How would you decipher
the meaning of all the bits and bytes whizzing past you? And what about
the real world outside your electronic realm?
Former Comics Editor, Guy Leshinski
has very kindly given us permission to reprint a prophetic interview
with Bryan Lee O'Malley in 2005. Will Bryan Lee O'Malley attain the
Holy Grail of cartoonists? As Bryan says, "We'll see..."