RUR v. Frankenstein

In both Frankenstein and Rossum’s Universal Robots the creator of synthetic creatures have various measures of control over their creatures. In Frankenstein, Victor exhibits no control over his creature what so ever, which could be argued for the reason the creature haunts him in the way it does. In contrast in Rossum’s Universal Robots humanity exerts too much control over its creations to the point where it is oppressive causing the Robots to rebel and eventually kill off all the humans. A point of interest in both of these tales is that the creations were generally equal to or even better than the creators. For example, Victor Frankenstein’s creature was much larger and stronger than Victor, and seemed to be of similar intellect. The Robots were superior to humans not only intellectually but physically as well. In both stories this seems to be a root of fear that the creators have of their creations. This fear then leads to both the lack of control in Frankenstein and the over use of control in RUR.
The statement both authors seem to be making is that we should fear our creations but not let that fear dictate our actions. The approach that authors of this specific type of science fiction seem to advocate is a paternal one. We should not oppress nor abandon our creations but guide them through their development and eventually their rise to a position of power. Since we cannot prevent the creation of artificial life, as it is inevitable that someone will strive to achieve that creation, we should instead guide it through its rise. Unfortunately many who read these novels generally don’t interpret the works in this way. They often read it as a testament against technology, not as an advisory tale. Hopefully we won’t create our own end by making the mistakes outlined by these works.

Owl Creek

The use of point of view within the story allows for the author to control our perception. It begins with a detached third person narrative, which gives the reader a general outlay of the situation without any emotion toward the soldiers or the planter. Gradually as the story progresses we slowly see more of the planter’s character; this combined with the tale of an epic escape jars terribly with the inevitable truth that he is in fact dead. This revealing of Peyton’s history is marked by a shift from third person limited to third person omnipotent. This shift allows us to connect to the characters and to empathize with them.

The same affect comes from the break in chronological order to explain Peyton’s character and past. Digressing from the action gives the reader time to understand the severity of the situation. Especially when the situation has been laid out in a very cold but clear manner, does the past play such an important role. Particularly when the past contrasts starkly with the present; on one hand there is a successful family life of an upstanding father, the other is the execution of a partisan.

The hope brought on by the third part also raises the emotional involvement of the reader. When a false image of happiness is brought crashing down by the inevitable truth that Peyton is in fact dead, one can’t help but feel stunned by the injustice. The contrast of what should have been to the actual events causes us to remember that our world is far from the fairy tale ending we want it to be, and as such it irrefutably greaves us.

Where did they go wrong?

For essay #2 my broad topic is the use and responsibility of a creator over its intelligent creation and the relation of technology to this process. The first piece of evidence comes from Frankenstein and Victor’s complete lack of control of his creation and thus his empowerment of the Monster. In Rossum’s Universal Robots comes the second with the gradual empowerment of the Robots through the sloth of humanity. The final piece of evidence comes again from Rossum’s Universal Robots as the plans of manipulating the Robots with limited emotions and feelings to control them.
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the principle character fails to exert any control of his creation, in fact he outright deserts it. This leaves the monster to its own devices allowing it to come up with its own terrible outlook on humanity. Clearly no control has very negative affects but at least the Monster has some concept of the sublime through its own observations. This in effect contrasts nicely with the case of Rossum’s Robots.
Rossum’s Robots were originally created to serve man with no sense of self-worth, pain or resistance. But with a gradual increase in freedom yet with the retention of oppression the Robots eventually revolt. With the oppressive nature of the Robots existence they are compelled to rebel. So it would seem that too much control is also negative.
Further evidence of this comes from the plans of Domin to creation division among the robots to keep them from uniting. He also sought to give the robots pain so that they would learn not to damage themselves. These two facets of control are manipulative to the extreme, but ultimately in part, at least with the feeling of pain, contribute to the humanization of the robots.
These three pieces of evidence all share the same common trait, which is the reaction of a creation to the misuse of control. When left without any limitations the creation of man is free to draw its conclusions as to the value of the human race. As the creation is separate from mankind it is free to do so. But when oppressed it is forced to draw a negative image of humanity.