ISMAEL BERNARDO PEREIRA

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE GOTHIC AND SCIENCE

FICTION IN FRANKENSTEIN, STRANGE CASE
OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE AND
THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU

PORTO ALEGRE
2018
 UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM LETRAS
ÁREA: ESTUDOS DE LITERATURA
LITERATURAS ESTRANGEIRAS MODERNAS
LINHA DE PESQUISA: SOCIEDADE (INTER)TEXTOS LITERÁRIOS E TRADUÇÃO
NAS LITERATURAS ESTRANGEIRAS MODERNAS

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE GOTHIC AND SCIENCE

FICTION IN FRANKENSTEIN, STRANGE CASE
OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE AND
THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU

AUTOR: Ismael Bernardo Pereira

ORIENTADORA: Sandra Sirangelo Maggio

Dissertação de Mestrado em Literaturas de

Língua Inglesa submetida ao Programa de Pós-
Graduação em Letras da Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul como requisito parcial
para a obtenção do título de Mestre.

PORTO ALEGRE
Abril de 2018
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first would like to thank my parents, Zedenir and Ildo, who supported me during all
my undergraduate and graduate life, which was fundamental so I could dedicate myself to my
studies and the writing of this thesis.

I would also like to thank

The faculty of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, which trasmitted to me a
number of learning and teaching opportunities during all of my academic period, some of
which are certainly reflected on this work.

The Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), which

financed me during this Master's course with a teaching scholarship in partnership with
Idiomas sem Fronteiras.

My advisor Pr. Dr. Sandra Sirangelo Maggio, who has been helping me since my
undergraduate period, and was essential for the development of this thesis, providing me with
the necessary readings and directions.

Pr. Dr. Claudio Vescia Zanini, Pr. Dr. Luciane Oliveira Müller and Pr. Dr. Marcia Ivana
de Lima e Silva, who kindly accepted to compose the examining board for the defence of this
thesis.

Júlia Helena Dias, Júlia Nunes Azzi and Katharina Gersch, who made themselves
available to read and make suggestions on this work beforehand.

And Lizeth Castellanos, who has been supporting me in the last few months, not only
academically, but in all spheres of my life.
 I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine

and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot

satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.

Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Frankenstein.

I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man;

I saw that, of the two natures that contended in the field of

my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to

be either, it was only because I was radically both.

Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

There it must be, I think, in the vast and eternal laws of matter, and

not in the daily cares and sins and troubles of men, that whatever

is more than animal within us must find its solace and its hope.

I hope, or I could not live.

Herbert George Wells, The Island of Dr. Moreau.

 RESUMO

A presente dissertação tem como objetivo estabelecer um diálogo entre três obras da
literatura britânica do século XIX: o romance Frankenstein (1818), da autora Mary W.
Shelley; a novela O Médico e o Monstro (1886), de autoria de Robert Louis Stevenson; e o
romance A Ilha do Dr. Moreau (1896), de H. G. Wells. Tal comparação será feita com base
nas convenções advindas dos gêneros Gótico e Ficção científica, presentes nas obras. Como
principal alicerce teórico para a definição de gêneros entendem-se as considerações de
Tzvetan Todorov, que defende que os gêneros são inevitáveis como horizonte de
interpretação, além de serem entidades em constante mudança numa cadeia de influências
através da qual novos gêneros são criados a partir de outros pré-existentes. O presente
trabalho parte desse pressuposto para determinar de que maneira os gêneros Gótico e Ficção
científica estão presentes nas obras, observando como os traços do Gótico, ao se adaptarem
através do tempo, deram lugar a convenções ainda semelhantes, mas que já apontavam para o
que posteriormente seria considerado um novo gênero literário. Primeiramente, são feitas
considerações sobre conceitos de gênero textual/literário através do tempo, as quais mostram
o quanto seu estudo permaneceu constante. A seguir são definidas certas convenções dos dois
gêneros, assim como o modo como dialogam entre si. A segunda parte do trabalho analisa as
duas primeiras obras em ordem cronológica, Frankenstein e O Médico e o Monstro, de
maneira a perceber a predominância de convenções do Gótico – especialmente relacionadas
ao conflito interior dos personagens, como o "duplo" – ao mesmo tempo que a emergência de
temas da ciência, como os de criador/criatura e ambição científica. O último capítulo verifica
como a primeira fase da Ficção científica de H. G. Wells em geral e A Ilha do Dr. Moreau em
particular resgatam convenções dos dois gêneros supracitados, ao mesmo tempo servindo
como consolidador das convenções do último. Conclui-se, portanto, que houve uma evolução
que possibilitou a emergência de um novo gênero ligado ao contexto histórico das obras, o
que legitima a consideração dos gêneros como entidades mais livres e não restritivas, que
podem estar presentes em diversas obras ao mesmo tempo e ampliar seu horizonte de
interpretação.

Palavras-chave: 1. Literatura britânica. 2. Mary Shelley. 3. R. L. Stevenson. 4. H. G.

Wells. 5. Gótico. 6. Ficção científica.
 ABSTRACT

This thesis establishes a dialogue among three books from 19 th century British literature:
the novel Frankenstein (1818), by M. W. Shelley; the novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde (1886), by Robert Louis Stevenson; and the novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896),
by H. G. Wells. This comparison is made based on the specific Gothic and Science fiction
conventions present in the books. The main theoretical support for the definition of genres
employed here comes from Tzvetan Todorov. The author argues that genres are inevitable as
horizons of interpretation, entities in constant change which tend to create new genres from
pre-existent ones, in a chain of influences. This thesis considers this supposition to determine
how Gothic and Science fiction make themselves present in the works analyzed, in a way that
Gothic traits, being adapted through time, give way to similar but yet innovative conventions,
which subsequently would be considered a new literary genre. Primarily, considerations
concerning the concept of genres through history are made, all of which show how this study
was kept constant. Hereafter, certain conventions regarding both genres are defined, as well as
the manner they dialogue amongst themselves. The second part of the thesis is dedicated to
the analysis of Frankenstein and Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and establishes the
predominance of Gothic conventions – especially the ones related to the inner conflict of the
characters, such as the "double" –, while considering the emergence of scientific themes, such
as the creator/creature relationship and scientific ambition. The last section verifies how the
first cycle of H. G. Wells' Science fiction in a broad sense, and The Island of Dr. Moreau in a
strict sense, reemploy conventions of both genres, serving to consolidate the latter. Therefore,
it is concluded that there was an evolution which enabled the emergence of a new genre,
considering the historical contexts and the books analyzed. This consideration justifies genres
as wide-ranging, non-restrictive entities, which may be present in various works
simultaneously and broaden their horizon of interpretation.

Key-words: 1. British literature. 2. Mary Shelley. 3. R. L. Stevenson. 4. H. G. Wells. 5.

Gothic. 6. Science fiction.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................9

1 CONCERNING GENRES..........................................................................................14
1.1 THE INEVITABILITY OF GENRES............................................................................15
1.2 GOTHIC AND SCIENCE FICTION.............................................................................22
1.2.1 The Evolution of Gothic................................................................................................22
1.2.2 Science and Science fiction..........................................................................................24
1.2.3 A Dialogue......................................................................................................................31

2 BUILDING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOTHIC AND SCI-FI............35

2.1 FRANKENSTEIN: A "HIDEOUS PROGENY"...........................................................36
2.1.1 Mary Shelley's Life and Her Masterpiece...................................................................37
2.1.2 A Psychoanalytical Reading of the Gothic in the Novel.............................................39
2.1.3 Other Gothic Conventions............................................................................................43
2.1.4 Gothic and Sci-fi in the Novel: A Negotiation.............................................................44
2.1.5 Frankenstein's Science Fiction Legacy........................................................................47
2.2 STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE: A POST-DARWINIAN
FRANKENSTEIN....................................................................................................................52
2.2.1 Robert Louis Stevenson and the Fin-de-Siècle...........................................................53
2.2.2 The Gothic Through the Double Personality..............................................................54
2.2.3 Science: Evolution or Regression?...............................................................................60

3 H. G. WELLS: THE "TURNING POINT" OF SCIENCE FICTION .......63

3.1 WELLS' SCIENCE FICTION........................................................................................64
3.1.1 The Story of a Brain......................................................................................................64
3.1.2 First Sci-fi Cycle: 1895 – 1901......................................................................................67
3.2 GOTHIC AND SCIENCE FICTION IN THE ISLAND OF DR.
MOREAU..................................................................................................................................74
3.2.1 Science Fiction: "Monsters Fabricated".....................................................................74
3.2.2 Gothic Roots: The Culmination of the "Mad Scientist"............................................78

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................84

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................89
 9

INTRODUCTION

Literature is a product of the society it originates from. As this study will make
relevant, this characteristic of the questioning of a certain time is also intrinsically present
in the history of Gothic fiction and extended itself to the Science fiction genre, which
absorbed some fundamental traits of the former genre. Considering The United Kingdom 1
as a pioneer of The Industrial Revolution in its first phase, which led the way to the
imperialist practices of the end of the 19 th century (HOBSBAWM, 1968), we observe that,
not by coincidence, it is from there that most of the literary questionings about the
industrial and scientific evolution came to arise. Those often presented themselves with
disturbed narratives that portrayed those strange new facts with pessimism, using science
as a device to extrapolate old, Gothic, fears. In this context, the present thesis will analyze
three British novels, which reflect in some way this fervent epoch of transition: Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde (1886), and H. G. Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896).

The choice of those works is justified to the extent that they reflect an evolution of
the treatment of certain Gothic conventions alongside the appropriation of scientific
exposure and speculation. This presence of scientific matter in the books occurs gradually,
being subtly present in Shelley – where romantic patterns still prevail –, and on the other
hand, extremely specific in Wells, an author more akin to the Science fiction as a genre, as
it would be recognized later on. This perception of Gothic as a '' 'mixed' genre, assembled,
like Frankenstein’s monster, out of other discourses'' (HOGLE, 2012, p. 85-86), is thus
recognized through the constant changes Gothic literature suffered since its origins in the
mid- 18th century until the end of the 19th century. Focusing on the dialogue between
Gothic and Science fiction patterns, the present work considers Mary Shelley's novel as a
particular important pioneer in the treatment of this new Gothic/Sci-fi branch of literature,
due to, for example: 1) the presence of the scientist – or mad scientist – as the protagonist
of the novel; 2) the monster creation through scientific means; 3) the pessimism related to

1 The corpus here analyzed will consist of books published in the UK during the 19th century.
 10

those practices, in which the creator has to be punished for his excessive ambition, etc.
Those, among other patterns, are particularly observable in Stevenson and Wells, where
new important aspects are added to the formula, which contributes to this sense of the
evolution of the genre since Shelley.

The present research thus intends to analyze which are some of the most striking
Gothic features, especially in Shelley and Stevenson, and how they evolved into this new
similar and yet fundamentally diverse representation in Wells. In other words: how Science
fiction came to be in retrospect with the Gothic genre, considering Wells as its “turning-
point”, as Darko Suvin argues (1979). The central objective is, therefore, to make a
connection between the Gothic and Science fiction genre – as they were represented in the
19th century considering the books analyzed – analyzing some elements common to them,
in order to argue that Sci-fi – at least as it is represented in Wells, one of its founders – is a
natural development of the Gothic genre. In relation to this, a discussion will be carried out
concerning the presence of multiple genres within the same work, according to Todorov's
analysis of genres and the relation they manifest among themselves (1976). The results
expected include a solid resemblance between the science-questioning themes treated in
both genres, pointing for a natural continuity through the 19th century, which culminates in
the scientific romances of H. G. Wells; as well as the identification of scientific evolution
during the century as the main motive for the development of Gothic genre into Science
fiction.

When analyzing and researching about such processes, we invariably may reflect
about our own society, since the UK of the 19th century came to influence all modern
society. Likewise, it is inevitable to compare what the fears of evolution were like in the
time of the foundation of modernity, and how they came to be nowadays, in a post-modern
society which witnessed the fall of most of the beliefs held before. Even if such
comparison is not the key point of this study, such reflections invariably appear along the
way in a process of one's justification for their own place in time. It also became evident,
when searching for this project, that there is, nowadays, a solid field of academic research
regarding both Gothic and Science fiction works, written in the English language. The
books which will be here analyzed, considered classics of both genres, also are frequently
written about in the academic circle. However, there are few pieces of researches dealing
specifically with the relation of both genres, in any level (researches in the Portuguese
 11

language are still more sparse in this sense). There are, of course, instances in which such
relations may be made, but just in a form of brief comments inside texts that have other
main intentions. Thus, it is evident that there is a prolific field to be explored, the specific
case in which this research intends to be placed on the evolution of the Gothic genre of the
nineteenth century into a more solid field later to be called Science fiction, from H. G.
Wells on. Thus, this study intends to explore in a broad sense a point which is often just
referred on related contributions to academic Gothic and Science fiction research and
contribute to the further development on this area of genre studies.

The first part of the thesis will deal specifically with the questions of genres with a
starting point: the classification of literature under literary genres is an inevitable process.
Although criticism has constantly criticized the assumption of the validity of genres in
determining classes to which books should belong, the present work considers a broader
approach to textual genres in which “each member alters the genre by adding,
contradicting, or changing constituents (COHEN, 1986, p. 203-04). The inevitability of
genres also arises from the fact that, according to Todorov, “genres, like any other
institution, reveal the constitutive traits of the society to which they belong” (1976, p. 163).
Therefore, even unconsciously, books follow the path of other books in a web of
intertextuality, according to Kristeva (2005), which ends up defining genres or sub-genres. 2
Still according to Todorov, the formation of genres from other pre-existent ones (1976) is
fundamental in the dialogue between Gothic and Science fiction which this research
intends to justify. This first chapter will end with a brief history of those genres, with some
literary examples which may help better understand the grasp of Gothic and Sci-fi. This
will determine that the genres can show similar patterns, as well as different ones.

The second part of this research aims to focus on the first two books chosen as
representations of the Gothic/Sci-fi genre in the 19 th century, in chronological order:
Frankenstein and Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The analysis of Mary Shelley's
novel will take a closer look at her life, especially regarding the fateful night that gave
conception to her work. This reading is justified as a means of scrutinizing the often
discussed position of Frankenstein as the first Science fiction book – the question of “why
Frankenstein” is unavoidable and thus an analysis upon the influences Mary Shelley
received, both scientific and literary, must follow. Alongside, the reading of the book will

2 That is the relation supposed in the present work among Shelley, Stevenson, and Wells: not one of a direct
contact with the author's work, but based on a general mood present through 19th century English fiction.
 12

try to establish certain Gothic conventions, following, primarily, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's
The Coherence of Gothic Conventions (1986), among other sources. These supposedly
Gothic conventions will be constantly compared with Sci-fi ones, so to establish a relation
of continuity between the genres. A final main source of analysis will be Freud's work on
Metapsychology, particularly “The Ego and the Id” (FREUD, 1984). This part is carried
out since much of the Gothic conventions have to do with “repression of sexual energy”
(Sedgwick, 1986, p. 7), a subject akin to Freud's psychoanalytic studies, which are, by their
turn, a product of that same society which created the books here observed. Concerning
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a similar approach will follow, but this time a comparison to
Shelley's novel will take place, especially regarding the extent in which certain themes
have evolved, such as the treatment of science and the double-figure – here even more
explicit. Stevenson's novella also anticipates new themes, related to the fin-de-siècle, such
as the presence of the city, now the scenery of Gothic, and the stronger scientific anxiety,
reflected by the atavism, a response to Darwin's theory of evolution.

The third and final part will continue the discussion relative to the treatment of
science at the end of the 19th century. Closer to Stevenson's work in time and general
subject, H. G. Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau is yet another example of a book that
utilizes Darwinism as a tool to create a pessimistic narrative towards the advancement of
science. More than that, Wells' “scientific romance”, as he would call them, is an heir to
both Stevenson and Shelley, not only due to its monster-creation plot but fundamentally
because it updates old fears to the more industrialized and scientifically evolved reality of
the transition between the 19th and 20th centuries. Here, as it was in Shelley, the analysis of
the author's background is also important to determine the grasp of his fiction. The
scientific discourse is much more specialized due to Wells' scientific knowledge as a
student, which resulted in a much more convincing explanation for the evolutive regression
presented, in relation to the previous authors. This signalizes, among other aspects, a
fundamental change between the Gothic and Sci-fi through the three books. Although each
of them possesses enough aspects to be considered part of both genres, in Wells the
evolution of the genre points more for a primarily Sci-fi fiction, in relation to the more
romantic horror of Shelley, for example. Apart from The Island of Dr. Moreau, this part
will also comprise a brief discussion on other first-cycle books from Wells' Sci-fi, since
they all showcase the same attitude of scientific pessimism in a particular way.
 13

The analysis held in this thesis will follow, therefore, the treatment conventions from
Gothic fiction in the corpus, as a means of comparison, with the objective of establishing
the birth of new a branch within the 19th century Gothic, which would further originate the
concept of Science fiction. The results expected include a resemblance of themes and
approaches in all of the three books analyzed, followed by particular innovations recurrent
of the context each work is situated in. Sci-fi and Gothic tropes, ultimately, can be
established as fundamental in 19th century English fiction. The status of Science fiction as a
genre after the period analyzed will not be narrowed, but it serves as a further reminder of
the ever-evolving aspect of literary genres, according to Todorov. The final objective of
this thesis is, besides connecting two frequently separate genres in research, determining
the point in which Sci-fi emerged, through a natural variation of the Gothic genre, which
does not deny the presence of literary texts as belonging to both of these genres in this time
of transition.
 14

1 CONCERNING GENRES

This introductory discussion focuses on the theoretical background regarding textual

and literary genres to be adopted in the present thesis. Throughout the other chapters, the
concepts here discussed will be periodically revisited whenever they seem fit when
analyzing the literary corpus – hence the reason for leaving this discussion for the first part
of this work.

In the first section, a literature review will be carried out, concerning the adoption of
genres according to some important literary critics in the field. The objective is to analyze
those views, considering the pros and cons of adopting genres and their classification of
literary works. Here the question of “belonging” to a genre is a very important and difficult
one since it determines to which extent a work of literature should be deemed exemplary of
a certain genre, or more than one. The conclusion, already evident by the title, is that the
use of genres in literary criticism seems to be inevitable: either a book tries to approximate
to a genre, justifying it; or to deviate from it, then creating a new genre. Tzvetan Todorov's
argument (1976) in considering the formation of genres as a transformation from old, pre-
established ones is also very important to the subsequent discussion concerning the
relationship between the Gothic and the Science fiction genres which this thesis ultimately
proposes to investigate.

The next section will focus on Gothic and Sci-fi properly, presenting important
works in the history of both genres and how they relate to their evolution. Through this
presentation, the wide-ranging scope of the genres will become evident, as well as their
possible different thematics and approaches to literature. This diversity, which is intimately
related to social and cultural aspects along the years – according to Bakhtin (1986) –,
ultimately converges to the idea of a natural modification of tropes in Gothic fiction
through the 18th and 19th centuries which led to the creation of a new, though pre-
established, genre, mostly evident in H. G. Wells. Simultaneously, the development of
Science fiction itself after its emergence – here just hinted at through the works analyzed,
due to its not being the focus of this work – serves to show that this is an ongoing
 15

transformation, which helped Sci-fi to become such a distinct genre when one analyzes the
great number of books (and movies) which can in some way be related to it. Thereby, this
part is going to introduce the discussion present through this thesis in a general manner, so
thereafter it can be applied more specifically to the literary corpus of Shelley, Stevenson,
and Wells.

1.1 THE INEVITABILITY OF GENRES

The use of genres in the division of literary tendencies and schools seems today a
surpassed topic or at least one that is not given much credit. Much of their functions have
been questioned for a number of reasons, such as, as Ralph Cohen (1986) points out, (1)
the notion that texts can actually be divided into those different classes, (2) the validity of
the common traits that supposedly tie texts together, and (3) the use of genre as a form of
insight into the interpretation of a certain work. The process of attaching a text to a specific
label may, therefore, seem problematic, due to the variety in the nature of such literary
works as pieces with their own message. However, this chapter – and the thesis as a whole
– intends to consider genres as more open categories, which influence the perception of
literary texts in order to broaden the horizon of interpretation used, rather than narrowing
to the resources of a single genre. Moreover, the process of dividing texts are here
considered as inevitable, since we are constantly searching for different approaches to
understanding a work of art, and, therefore, looking at specific aspects that may be repeat
in other texts.
If we look through history, we can easily visualize that a number of authors have
pursued this tendency of establishing rules for the division of literature. They created
different theories to justify the importance of observed distinctions, or even of a literary
evolution, observable through a history of changes in literature. Some of these tendencies
of connecting different genres are going to be presented in order to argue about the
inevitability, not only of genre division, but of a genre dialogue, in the evolution of
literature, which is going to set the background for the dialogue between Gothic and
Science fiction conventions on the latter part of the thesis.

Beginning with Aristotle, in what may be called "classical genre theory" – although
 16

the concept of genre did not yet exist at the time –, literature is understood as "an imitation
and emulation of ideal models that were based on stable rules abstracted from exemplary
texts" (HERMAN, 2007, p. 110). This resulted in a descriptive theory that established the
criteria a work should follow in order to be included in one of the classic forms of poetry,
Epic, Tragedy, and Comedy. In his Poetics, Aristotle used several lines of comparison
among classical poetry, especially regarding Tragedy and Epic, both recognizing
similarities – Tragic and Epic poems (1) may be simple or complex, (2) have all the parts,
except Scenery and Song, and (3) require Reversal of Intention, Recognition and Tragic
Incidents – and establishing differences – Tragedy is adressed to an inferior public, since
the actors have to make the Plot explicit, whereas the Epic poem is "adressed to a
cultivated audience, who do not need gesture" (ARISTOTLE, 1902, p. 107-09). This early
description and prescription can be said to have influenced to a certain extent all
subsequent ones. And if the rigorous criteria pointed out to a universe of stable genres, that
may have given genre theory its ever-questionable aspect, the similarities of traits present
in Aristotle, still in a nascent form, were deepened in later approaches to genres, far into
the romantic period.

Romantic genre theory developed the notion of three main genres, Lyric, Epic, and
Drama. Only now there was a view that marked a radical divergence from the classical
approach – the notion of the "author's individual feeling and sensibility" that claimed that
"every poem is a genre unto itself" (HERMAN, 2007, P. 112). This departure did not
entirely abolish the tendency of the creation of genres and analysis of their aspects, but it
surely gave way to new, more open approaches that considered a sense of dialogue in pre-
established genres.

In this sense, the concept of a literary evolution can be observed in certain authors
from Russian Formalism. J. Tynianov (1976), while discussing the form of a literary work,
argues that it should be felt as dynamic. This dynamicity is reflected not only within the
text itself but in correlation to an entire system of texts. Going deeper, the correct analysis
of the construction of a literary work, according to Tynianov, intrinsically depends on the
analysis of the entire system of other works to which it belongs. Within this logic is the
novel, the most popular literary genre of modernity, which would come to encompass a
number of different genres. Different from the classical triad, the novel establishes itself as
a constant, ever-evolving genre, highly influenced by “extra-literary material”, most
 17

importantly the sphere of social life. The literary evolution, according to the Russian
author, would be translated in the substitution of systems which involve this whole relation
of influences among texts and external elements. These concepts regarding both an internal
and external evolution – in the sense of change – of texts, was very important to a future
analysis of the topic. Although belonging to the Formalism, such descriptions, despite
being very specific in their structure, point to a broad view concerning a possible net of
influences concerning the social aspect of the process of creating and analyzing literary
genres, pointing to the nature of subsequent studies.
This preoccupation on considering the social aspect was particularly helpful to the
studies of another Russian author, Mikhail Bakhtin, now involved in the background of
Structuralism. Here, the concept of genres is expanded – it does not only comprehend
literary texts but all forms of verbal practices, which are, therefore, denominated “speech
genres”, “relatively stable types of these utterances” (BAKHTIN, 1986, p. 60). The speech
genres are thus divided into primary (simple) and secondary (complex). The literary genres
are located inside the sphere of the secondary genres, in which language is treated with
more expertise; primary genres can be found in situations of social interaction, but may
also appear within secondary genres: for example, a letter can compose the chapter of a
novel or even its entirety. The author also considers as an important aspect the style and
individuality in a text. This can be related to the evolution of a text inside a certain point in
time, as well as its own relation to other texts:

This imprint of individuality marking the work also creates special

internal boundaries that distinguish this work from other works connected
with it in the overall processes of speech communication in that particular
cultural sphere: from the works of predecessors on whom the author
relies, from other works of the same school, from the works of opposite
schools with which the author is contending, and so on. (BAKHTIN,
1986, p. 75)

By calling attention to the individuality, the author's presence in a text, a trait that
was so highly valued by the Romantics, Bakhtin defends that the existence of genres is
fundamental considering this logic. It does not follow, therefore, according to the author,
that the particular aspects of certain texts should deny a system of classification, of genres,
since this same system works through a constant dialogue in which texts are influenced,
answer to, and contradict that which is being produced by other authors. This relationship
 18

of utterances is related to Bakhtin's concept of “dialogism”, which takes into account

several aspects, especially to describe the presence of different autonomous voices inside
the same text, which are in constant dialogue (BAKHTIN, 1990). French author Julia
Kristeva's reading of Bakhtin's studies resulted in the notion of “intertextuality”, which
focuses more on the relationship among different texts, expanding the notions of the
Russian author in this regard. According to Kristeva:

(…) each word (text) is an intersection of words (texts) where at least one
other word (text) can be read (…) any text is constructed as a mosaic of
quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The
notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic
language is read as at least double. (KRISTEVA, 1980, p. 66).

Expanding on Bakhtin's work, Kristeva broadens the act of intertextuality to the

whole spectrum of texts, rather than focusing on the novel due to its internal complexity.
All of these notions progressively open a conception of genres and texts as interconnected
entities, that can be analyzed together in order to better understand the individual texts and
the whole “mosaic of quotations”.

The question of belonging, however, is still problematic if we consider an individual

text in relation to a certain genre. French critic Jacques Derrida, for example, does not deny
the participation of texts within certain genres, only he does not consider this an act of
belonging, in the sense that a text would deny its own identity in trying to identify with
others of similar traits. This is never a complete act of belonging since no text could show
all traits of a given class. In creating the opposition participation/belonging, Derrida
accepts and denies the function of genres in grouping texts: “Every text participates in one
or several genres, there is no genreless text; there is always a genre and genres, yet such
participation never amounts to belonging” (DERRIDA, 1980, p. 65). The inevitable
presence of genres within texts is here understood as “participation”, whereas “belonging”
would imply, to Derrida, a limitation to the analysis of texts. Nevertheless, in both denying
and accepting genres, the author recognizes the numerous contributions that considering
genres as active and important concepts can bring, focusing on the – not exclusive –
similarities of theme that attaches a text to a genre:
 19

Can one identify a work of art, of whatever sort, but especially a work of
discursive art, if it does not bear the mark of a genre, if it does not mark
or mention it or make it remarkable in any way? (...) First, it is possible to
have several genres, an intermixing of genres (...). Second, this remark
can take on a great number of forms and can itself pertain to highly
diverse types. (...) Finally, this remarking-trait need be neither a theme
nor a thematic component of the work—although of course this instance
of belonging to one or several genres, not to mention all the traits that
mark this belonging, often have been treated as theme (...). (DERRIDA,
1980, p. 64)

The “instance of belonging and not belonging” is also present in another Post-
Structuralist author, Tzvetan Todorov.3 In “The Origins of Genres” (1980), he argues about
the existence of genres, even when there is no belonging – a genre is made visible when
there is an association as well as a negation of the said genre:

The fact that a book "disobeys" its genre does not make the latter
nonexistent; it is tempting to say that quite the contrary is true. And for a
twofold reason. First, because transgression, in order to exist as such,
requires a law that will, of course, be transgressed. One could go further:
the norm becomes visible––lives––only by its transgressions.”
(TODOROV, 1980, p. 159-60)

Existing both as '''horizons of expectation' for readers, and as 'models of writing' for
authors" (TODOROV, 1980, p. 163), their functionality cannot possibly be neglected. Even
the authors who represent a vanguard, creating something completely new in relation to
what existed previously, did so only because what came before needed, for some reason, to
be contradicted. To deny this relation is the same as to ignore the mosaic of influences that
exists in literature. If certain genres disappeared, it was the genres of the past that were
substituted by other, new genres. This is related to Todorov's understanding regarding the
transformation of genres:

From where do genres come? Why, quite simply, from other genres. A
new genre is always a transformation of one or several old genres: by
inversion, by displacement, by combination. (...) There has never been a
literature without genres; it is a system of continual transformation, and
the question of origins cannot be disassociated, historically, from the field
of the genres themselves. (TODOROV, 1980, p. 163)
3 Due to the closeness of his studies to the theme of this thesis and his proposition concerning the evolution
and behavior of genres, Todorov is the author that is going to be referred to mostly throughout this work.
 20

This notion is very important and will be summarized in the next section, in order to
be applied to the relation between the Gothic and Science fiction. For now, we can observe
that the author sets the relationship among genres themselves as the primary cause for
transformation. At, first, this may seem a disregard for the social aspect and the influence it
may have on literature. However, as well as Bakhtin, Todorov also considers society's role
in the making of genres. His division of “speech acts” and “genres” is similar to Bakhtin's
“primary” and “secondary genres”, insofar the first represents a social activity and the
second one a more specialized construction: “(...) recounting a story is a speech act; and
the novel is a genre in which something is certainly recounted; however, the distance
between the two is great” (TODOROV, 1980, p. 164). The author, therefore, does not
ignore the influence of the whole verbal activity upon genres. As for Bakhtin, genres are
here understood beyond the literary spectrum, in a set of transformations which
differentiates them at the same time that puts them in the same level of inter-relations.
Moreover, the origin of genres, according to Todorov, becomes twofold. They derive from
other genres as well as from speech acts, which are less complex constructions of verbal
use. Creating a hypothesis rather than establishing a specific conclusion, the author
supposes that “one goes from a simple act to a complex act”, “via a certain number of
transformations, or amplifications” (TODOROV, 1980, p. 164-65). Although the thesis
focuses on the relation among pre-established genres, setting Todorov as the main
background criticism, it is worth mentioning a possible connection, considering the
author's concepts of speech acts and genres, of the scientific discourse of the 19 th century
and the novel, especially in H. G. Wells, at the end of the century. Even considering the
scientific discourse as a complex genre, rather than a speech act, though not literary, would
not interfere in the connection that made the Sci-fi genre possible during the time studied
here.

As a final important contribution from Todorov's criticism, we come back to the

question of belonging to a more definite position. In another important text, Introduction à
la Littérature Fantastique (1970), a previous book in which the author establishes the
classical divisions of the fantastic, there is also a discussion concerning the origins and
workings of textual genres. Here we see a more open approach to the question of
belonging, in a sense that a book may have multiple possible associations:
 21

On devrait dire qu'une œuvre manifeste tel genre, non qu'il existe dans
cette œuvre. (...) il n'y a aucune nécessité qu'une œuvre incarne
fidèlement son genre, il n'y en a qu'une probabilité. (...) une œuvre peut,
par exemple, manifester plus d'une catégorie, plus d'un genre.
(TODOROV, 1970, p. 26).

On adopting Todorov's understanding of the belonging of texts to certain genres –

which is, consequently, a reflection of a number of theories which came before, as it was
shown –, we can freely elaborate on those points posed at the beginning by Ralph Cohen:

(1) The notion that texts can actually be divided into those different classes → If
we consider that the classes in which a text may fall into can be numerous, this does not
seem a matter of restriction, but rather of expansion concerning the horizon of possible
interpretations. This is ultimately the point of the thesis: analyzing Shelley, Stevenson, and
Wells through both Gothic and Science fiction conventions is far more enriching than
narrowing each of the books to only one class, only one genre. Thus, both genres can be
applied to the books in order to establish how they intersect, how they differ from one
another and how an evolution of themes can be observed considering the books and the
way they treat the conventions, within the established time period.

(2) The validity of the common traits that supposedly tie texts together → Again,
considering the presence of several genres in a book, the traits that tie the work to the
genres do not need to be as complete and profound as if it was related to a single genre.
This is shown in regards to the presence of scientific descriptions in the books analyzed:
this is a trait that progressively turns complex as we approach the end of the 19 th century,
however, the lack of scientific jargon in Frankenstein does not make it less Sci-fi than The
Island of Dr. Moreau. The trait is there, which is enough since there is a wide number of
other traits to make the connections between the books and the genres, due to the
acceptance of more than class.

(3) The use of genre as a form of insight into the interpretation of a certain work →
Finally, the insight is forcibly broader and more enriching if we consider more than one
genre as a channel of interpretation into a work's themes and strategies.

Ralph Cohen himself, referring to some authors of genre theory, ultimately shares a
similar view, not considering the “common traits” but understanding that multiple
 22

possibilities are created through the dialogue genre/text:

Genres are open systems; they are groupings of texts by critics to fulfill
certain ends. And each genre is related to and defined by others to which
it is related. Such relations change based on internal contraction,
expansion, interweaving. Members of a genre need not have a single trait
in common since to do so would presuppose that the trait has the same
function for each of the member texts. Rather the members of a generic
classification have multiple relational possibilities with each other,
relationships that are discovered only in the process of adding members
to a class. (COHEN, 1986, p. 210)

Genres are open categories. Through all genre theory, alongside the rules of
restriction, there were also considerations concerning the possibilities of their evolution
and connection. A literary analysis, therefore, becomes more productive if we accept the
presence of multiple genres in a book, as well as a natural evolution of genres from other
genres, which arise from this same connection.

In the next section, we are left to apply these principles to the convoluted history of
Gothic and Science fiction works, trying to establish how they may relate to each other in
history.

1.2 GOTHIC AND SCIENCE FICTION

1.2.1 The Evolution of Gothic

From its first conception – arguably Horace Walpole's Castle of Otranto 'Gothic
story' –, the Gothic genre in English literature is marked by having emerged in different
moments of historical and social disruption, expressing fear regarding an uncertain future.
From the middle of the 18th to the beginning of the 19th century, these extraordinary stories
used elements of the supernatural and the barbaric in order to retrieve the imagination of a
lost medieval past, thus reflecting the moment of tension in which the Industrial and
French Revolutions announced drastic changes to the governmental and social practices of
the time (PUNTER, 2001). In a general sense, however, the term dates even further back in
time, having been first associated to the Goths, one of the Germanic peoples whose
 23

invasion contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. The parallel was first drawn in
relation to the type of architecture that date this period until the beginning of Renaissance,
“being monstrous and barbarous; a confused and disordered style” (PUNTER, 2001, p. 33).
This comparison was mistakenly made, however, insofar as it could be associated to any
other German people, or simply called “barbarian”, in a broad sense; but the term was
accepted, and soon adopted by literature, with the same undertone as it was in medieval
architecture.

Thus, the Gothic genre in literature is marked by "an emphasis on portraying the
terrifying, a common insistence on archaic settings, a prominent use of the supernatural
(...) and the attempt to deploy and perfect techniques of literary suspense" (PUNTER,
2013, p.1). In the 18th century, Gothic sceneries predominate, such as castles and abbeys in
Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey4; during
the 19th century, the fears which the Gothic brings to view are now located in the city, a
space ever more present to the readers, and, therefore, more terrifying. When the style is
thus appropriated once again in this modern setting, people's anxieties now expressed a
feeling of estrangement towards fast scientific advancement, especially due to the
Darwinist theories, which created a shocking impression in the Victorian anthropocentric
view maintained theretofore (HOGLE, 2002). This new “scientific” appropriation,
however, may be said to have originated at the beginning of the century, with Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein as its most evident example of the emergence of a new branch of
Gothic fiction.

One of the main features of Gothic narratives, since their first appearance in the late
18th century, is their intimate relation to the elements present in the society that produces
them. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto, widely considered the progenitor of the
genre (HOGLE, 2002), opposed the prevailing form in literature at his time, the realistic
novel, with its neoclassical industrial setting, and created an imaginative, medieval story
(PUNTER, 2001): an urge for a new kind of literature that valued past elements, which
were forgotten or thought of as of low value at the time. This characteristic of questioning
its own surroundings permeated the genre through its many developments through the 19th
century. For example, the Female Gothic – through Ann Radcliffe, the Brontë sisters, etc. –
critiques against patriarchal figures and female repression; and the anxieties felt by the

4 Austen's book, although working as a parody of Gothic tropes, can be figured as an example of how the
conventions of the genre were received at the time.
 24

Victorians due to fast scientific development, which in some instances would be opposed
to religious traditional values. This last aspect, reinforced by the Darwinist theory of
evolution, was responsible for the creation of narratives––the most famous of them being
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde––that dealt with the figure of the scientist trying
to transcend the natural laws and ultimately creating abominations. Important Gothic
features were still there: the suspense, the horror, as well as the ever-present questioning
regarding society and its evolution. This tendency continued in H. G. Wells at the end of
the century through his social criticizing and scientific treatment, only now the accuracy
given by the author to the science involved, turning it a main element of the plot, was
sufficient to grant Wells with the label of (or one of) the important figures to develop new
emerging genre (SUVIN, 1979).

Thus, the Gothic motivations of the late 19 th century follow the deepening in the
characters' psychology observed so far, while also renewing themselves as a reflex of the
events which marked England, such as the identity crisis from the rigid moral codes of
Victorian society and the uncertainty as to the ever-growing scientific evolution witnessed
through the last decades. The moral rigidity has as a natural consequence, once again, the
emergence of the repressed “double”, which reflects the primitive and reprehensible side of
the characters from the literature of this time. Resuming the epigraphs of this thesis, this
can be reflected through the “love” and “rage” felt by the Creature before his master
Frankenstein, who selfishly had him neglected; or the duality between primitive impulses
that Jekyll always felt, and where ultimately born in the figure of Mr. Hyde. Science,
mostly through Darwin's theory of evolution, complements this idea by establishing a
connection between men and their ancestors – not only apes but all animals – which
represents a call to people's consciousness as to which extent those past primitive traits are
entirely extinguished in the modern men (PUNTER, 2001). Scientific development is thus
seen through pessimistic lens, in the sense that it tends to worsen, rather than improving,
the contexts to which it is applied; in the tradition of Frankenstein, the archetype of the
“mad scientist” is developed through Dr. Jekyll in Stevenson and Dr. Moreau in H. G.
Wells. The repressed, born through the norms of Victorian society, merges with the new
primitive repressed brought to light, perhaps not with this intention, by scientific
development.
 25

1.2.2 Science and Science Fiction

When we dive into the realm of Science fiction, two possibilities often arise: either
the work of art deviates in a great extent from what could be real science, although still
bearing this name, or, on the contrary, the scientific descriptions given seem so convincing
that the reader/viewer is persuaded to consider that as science itself. In both cases, we can
observe that the meaning which science may have in everyday life is changed when it is
transposed into fiction: it may be daring and be closest to a fantasy or a dystopia, or it can
create strategies to seem like something real, although unpractical in reality. 5 The several
manners through which this transposition occurs depends on the approach that the author
wants or is able to provide. In the case of this thesis, the analysis on how science became
specified through 19th century English fiction focuses on the scientific knowledge of the
authors chosen in order to argue about the description of science in their books, being this
knowledge ever more specified towards the fin-de-siècle. But what is this science prior to
the creation of the fiction it is inspired upon? How did it change over the years?

David Lindberg (2007), in his book The Beginnings of Western Science, concludes
that science has several meanings, accepted by different communities who consider them
as legitimate, in a way that we must determine what the term "science" means in any
specific occasion. Following this logic, he argues that many ingredients which are now
regarded as aspects of science can be found in the past (the antiquity and the Middle Ages)
such as the describing and investigating of nature. In this sense, the "science" or "natural
science" of those times can be considered the ancestor of modern science. There is also the
"too general" dictionary definition, "according to which 'science' is organized systematic
knowledge of the material world"; the idea that science is defined through its methodology,
"specifically, the experimental method, according to which a theory, if it is to be truly
scientific, must be built on and tested against the results of observation and experiment";
and finally, perhaps the most common perception of science, the idea that it is defined by
its content, "the current teaching of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropology,
psychology and so forth" (LINDBERG, 2007, p. 1).

Whatever its understanding nowadays, be it more specific or general, one has also to
perceive how this perception evolved through time and how the so-called "modern
science" came to be. As Lindberg argues, the analysis of nature is longlasting and predates

5 This last method is used by H.G. Wells and will be discussed in Chapter 3.
 26

the modern age. However, there is a turning-point when what was then called "natural
philosophy" began to suffer considerable changes. According to A. F. Chalmers, a common
claim is that "modern science was born the early seventeenth century when the strategy of
taking the facts of observation seriously as the basis for science was first seriously
adopted" (CHALMERS, 1999, p. 2), contrary to the authority of the classic Greek
philosophers or the Bible. Although, considering this to be a problematic view, from there
on the author performs a deep analysis on the basis of the science that came to be
developed: the observation of nature, experimentation, and the deriving of theories through
induction and deduction, following a logic in which the evidence seeks to justify the
theory. (This kind of thinking is particularly important to the future Science fiction, since
"by proceeding as they do from statements about some to statements about all events of a
particular kind, [inductive arguments] go beyond what is contained in the premises"
(CHALMERS, 1999, pp. 45), antecipating the characteristic of Sci-fi of showcasing, often
dystopic, future conclusions from present observations of how society operates.)

The scientific revolution that ensued is, therefore, the name given by historians to
this period – which began in the 17 th and was consolidated in the 18 th century – when the
scientific method was institutionalized (HENRY, 1998). The fervent period of scientific
advancement thus predates the famous Industrial Revolution, which began at the end of the
18th and extended itself to the entire 19th century in its second phase. Both “revolutions”,
however, had a period of intersection which benefited the production of their respective
areas. If not, for the recent scientific applications that came to be in parallel with the
industrial practices, much of the industrial world that came to be would not be possible.
Eric J. Hobsbawm comments, in Industry and Empire:

The major technical advances of the second half of the nineteenth century
were therefore essentially scientific; that is to say they required at the
very least some knowledge of recent developments in pure science for
original inventions, a far more consistent process of scientific experiment
and testing for their development and an increasingly close and
continuous link between industrialists, technologists and professional
scientist and scientific institutions. (HOBSBAWN, 1968, p. 145)

Likewise, David Cahan also refers that:

 27

Developments in the sciences during this period arguably equaled or

exceeded those in natural philosophy during the Scientific Revolution of
the sixteenth and seventeenth, and in virtually every aspect, be it
intellectual range, theory formation, empirical results, or instrumentation.
Moreover, the sciences underwent unprecedented institutional growth and
had a large role in reshaping society––just as society helped reshape
them. (CAHAN, 2003, p. 3)

This period also marked the change of the name “natural philosophy” – used to
designate an understanding of the physical world (HENRY, 1998). – to “science”, the now
common name that was kept thereon. Previously, in the English language, a more general
synonym to “knowledge”, “science”, as well as “scientists” acquired modern connotations
through the 19th century, due to the prestige now given to those branches of knowledge. As
Sydney Ross observes,

The period of synonymity lasted about fifty years, approximately 1800-

1850; allocation of philosophy [was then done] to the theological and
metaphysical, and science to the experimental and physical branches of
knowledge” (ROSS, 1962, p. 69).

This shift is observable in the books further analyzed, since Mary Shelley's famous
novel encompasses the “natural philosophy” period, while Stevenson and Wells are located
in the “science” period per se. The specification of this ever more distinctive science
follows along, from the more artistic and abstract descriptions of Frankenstein to the
explanation of scientific methods of The Island of Dr. Moreau.

Still following the same timeline towards the 20 th century, we now shift from the
realm of history to the realm of fiction, although both remain somewhat connected. By the
end of the 19th century, the expression "scientific romances" was already popular,
especially through H. G. Wells. Science fiction, or rather, the "Scientifiction" concept was
first devised by editor Hugo Gernsback in the first edition of the Amazing Stories magazine
in 1926. The publication was the first magazine to publish only such works described with
this label, "the Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, and Edgar Allan Poe type of story—a charming
romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision" (GERNSBACK, 1926, p.
3). The first issues helped to create a tradition of Sci-fi republishing famous 19 th-century
authors as the above mentioned, while also influencing people to write new twentieth-
 28

century versions with certain innovations (JAMES; MENDLESOHN, 2003). Several other
concepts for the genre, by authors and critics alike, were followed. Perhaps the most often
quoted definition, either to be accepted or refuted, is Darko Suvin's "cognitive
estrangement":

SF is, then a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are
the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose
main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the
author's empirical environment. The estrangement differentiates it from
the "realistic" literary mainstream of 18th to 20th century. The cognition
differentiates it not only from myth, but also from the fairy tale and the
fantasy. (1972, p. 375)

Gernsback's concise statement "scientific fact and prophetic vision" fits well within
the structure of Frankenstein, a work that opens the way into numberless discussions that
range from the realm of fiction into that of reality. Suvin's concept, because it is so broad,
tends to exclude Shelley's novel from some of its intrinsic aspects, as the status of a
modern myth, besides the fact that the "cognition" there is still subtle. This happens to be
no exception, but the general rule. Science fiction grew to be so much varied, due to
diverse interpretations of what the genre could grasp, that an indefinite number of books,
sometimes apparently alien to one another, ended up sharing the same label, such as
extraordinary voyages, utopias/dystopias, hard-Sci-fi, etc. In this sense, the establishment
of a single concept of the genre, which could comprehend the entirety of its manifestations,
has been proven a difficult task, that however is often done. Brazilian critic Raul Fiker, for
example, tries to encompass Sci-fi's numerous archetypes, in a list of fifteen items that
include "interstellar space travel", "utopias and dystopias", "lost or parallel worlds", "time-
travel", "robots and androids", etc. (FIKER, 1985, pp. 46-70, my translation). Such listing
can be useful in identifying common tropes that could be associated to Sci-fi, but a straight
classification into subgenres would forcibly just confuse the readers and compromise the
unity that the genre may possess as a whole.

John Rieder, in his article "On Defining SF, or Not: Genre Theory, SF, and History"
(2010), has a more open view concerning genres, as multitudinous products, "fluid and
tenuous constructions made by the interaction of various claims and practices by writers,
producers, distributors, marketers, readers, fans, critics and other discursive agents"
 29

(RIEDER, 2010, p. 191). The author also highlights the importance of those relations, and,
therefore, of genre division, since "when 'we' point to a story and say it is SF, therefore,
that means not only that it ought to be read using the protocols associated with sf but also
that it can and should be read in conversation with other sf texts and readers" (RIEDER,
2010, p. 201). According to the author, the traits or archetypes are created and reproduced
and repeated by all persons involved in the process. A genre, not only Sci-fi, is always
recreating itself through a complex dialogue.

Paul Kinkaid's approach to Science fiction, and in a sense to genres as a whole,

proves to be a good alternative for the definition of the genre, which is articulated to
Rieder's understanding of the genre as an entity formed through several connections. The
author argues that there's no specific starting point for Science fiction, since "there is no
ancestral text that could possibly contain, even in nascent form, all that we have come to
identify as science fiction" (2008, p. 13). If Frankenstein, for example, was identified as
such founder work – as it often is – every other work of fiction which intended to belong to
the genre would have to conform to its predetermined laws. In order to avoid such
limitations, Kinkaid treats the Sci-fi genre as "a web of resemblances":

And any number of those resemblances might constitute what we would

call science fiction. By thinking of science fiction as a network of such
family resemblances, it is easier to see that science fiction is not one
thing. Rather, it is any number of things – a future setting, a marvellous
device, an ideal society, an alien creature, a twist in time, an interstellar
journey, a satirical perspective, a particular approach to the matter of
story, whatever we may be looking for when we look for science fiction,
here more overt, here more subtle – which are braided together in an
endless variety of combinations. (2008, p. 20-21)

Following this logic, if one work of fiction has one trait, one resemblance, which at
some moment was attributed to Sci-fi, then this work is surely Sci-fi. This approach is very
broad but manages to comprehend the whole body of Science fiction without committing
any injustice. At the same time, acknowledging that fictional works are complex entities,
formed by extensive particular traits, Kinkaid's thinking also gives way to the multiplicity
of genres in the same work, which may concern different, although sometimes related,
genres. That's again the already mentioned key point by Tzvetan Todorov, who argues that
it is better to say that a genre, or genres, is manifested in a given work, and not the contrary
 30

(1975). In the same way, considering genres as such tightly related structures, the question
of their origins, according to the author, is also dependable: "A new genre is always a
transformation of one or several old genres: by inversion, by displacement, by
combination" (1976, p. 161).

Following Kinkaid's argument, we could relate a number of books previous to the

period here analyzed – often referred as Proto-Sci-fi (FIKER, 1985) – as members of the
Science fiction genre, since they conform with resemblances found in other recognized
Sci-fi books. This is possible despite the common understanding that most Sci-fi that was
written with the genre in mind, after 1926, is the “true” Sci-fi, what can be observed
registered in some encyclopedias or companions encompassing works of the genre, such as
the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, by Don D'ammassa (2005), which rarely ventures into
the 19th century. Therefore, on searching previous to Mary Shelley or even around her time,
there is a tendency of finding an immense network of influences that once more prove the
evolution and constant creation of genres from others. Only to mention a few, perhaps the
most constant theme in the Sci-fi previous to the 19th century is the speculative fiction of
the extraordinary voyages, possibly influenced by the age of discoveries. Brian Stableford,
in his article “Science Fiction Before the Genre” 6 – describes a more extensive list of such
works of “of utopian fantasy, whose usual narrative form was the imaginary voyage”
(JAMES; MENDLESOHN, 2003, p. 15). This Sci-fi often does not treat the scientific
world directly, but showed very detailed descriptions of extraordinary societies, for the
better or for the worse. This branch arguably began with Thomas More's Utopia (1516) –
the book that created the term for an ideal and unreachable place –, although Plato's
Republic (380 BC) can also be considered an ancestor, the farthest one in time. Following
More, New Atlantis (1624) by Francis Bacon, although not a finished work, is often
mentioned as an exponent of the utopian branch of Sci-fi. And perhaps the most known
English novel from the 18th century by Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels (1726), continues
the theme of the voyages with a satirical tone, which was often misunderstood or ignored
through history.

There are many other known examples, not only from this branch of Science fiction
but many diverse experiments which involve science of speculation, which can be found at
different points through literary evolution. Edgar Allan Poe himself, an author often related

6 A title that is contradictory in the least, but reveals something about the understanding of genres as entities
with a defined name and purpose.
 31

to themes of horror fiction, experimented with the genre in some short stories; and Herman
Melville wrote a short story, "The Bell Tower", which is a direct influence from the themes
developed in Frankenstein – the creation revolting against the creator. This thesis does not
cover all possible themes of Science fiction – that would be an overwhelming and virtually
impossible task. Considering the evolution of genres, the intertextuality present through the
history of literature, the number of works that can, for some reason, some particular trait,
be related to something which was chosen to be called Science fiction, is so immense and
so rich that a complete study of the genre becomes unadvised. That is why this work
intends to narrow down the study to a small selection of books, which are believed to have
influenced the creation of the genre with the name “science” inscribed. Utopian/dystopian
fiction was already very popular, not only before the 19th century but especially in the 20th
century. Many other dystopias which did not involve scientific jargon became famous
when the genre had already established itself with its name, such as Ray Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451 and George Orwell's 1984, which only reveals a continuation of tendencies
from the past and an act of establishing works such as Gulliver's Travels within the genre,
despite their always being there, in a sense. The name of the genre could be simply defined
“utopia”, if this tendency had followed. However, the particular development of science in
19th century society, as well as the influence that it manifested in fiction, was enough for
the interest in its extrapolation to be considered important.

1.2.3 A Dialogue
The scholar discourse on the dialogue between Gothic and Science fiction is scarce,
though not inexistent. Patrick Brantlinger, in his article "The Gothic Origins of Science
Fiction", argues that "the conventions of science fiction derive from the conventions of
fantasy and romance, and especially from those of the Gothic romance. Science fiction
grows out of literary forms that are antithetical to realism (...)" (BRANTLINGER, 1980, p.
30). This defense of both genres as deviations from the "real" – the sort of romance which
aims to portray the real-life interactions – can be stated as one evident resemblance,
although another important difference also arises. Gothic is content enough with its
fantastic elements – in fact they contribute to the feeling of uneasiness and terror, for they
represent the unknown –, whereas Sci-fi, although dealing with the same uncanny
elements, transmits the illusion that those facts – the creation of a live being in
 32

Frankenstein, the manipulation of animals in Moreau – can by some possibility be "real",

should the advancement of science permit it. This illusion became ever more possible as
soon as writers who had scientific knowledge began venturing into the realm of fiction,
being Wells one of the first most significant one in this regard. Nevertheless, "the power of
the irrational over the rational" (BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 31) is still present in both
genres, sometimes through different, sometimes similar manners.

The most important point that Brantlinger refers to – not only because it fits perfectly
in the aims of this work, but because it traces a dialogue of themes through the genres – is
the establishment of Mary Shelley's famous novel as a reference point of Science fiction,
without losing its Gothic roots:

If we regard Frankenstein as at least a clear, early example of cross-

fertilization between the Gothic romance and science fiction, two facts
about it are worth stressing. (...) While the very phrase Gothic romance
suggests a reaction against things modern and rationalized, there is also
an important sense in which the whole development of science fiction
from Frankenstein forward has been characterized by an anti-
Promethean, anti-utopian, anti-scientific pessimism.
And the second fact worth stressing is that Mary Shelley's story contains
many of the patterns that show up in modern science fiction. Most
obviously, there is the incarnation of reason, Victor Frankenstein himself,
the progenitor not only of his monster but also of a long line of mad
scientists, through Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Wells's Dr. Moreau down to
the Dr. Strangeloves of the present. (BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 32)

Setting Frankenstein as a turning-point where both genres began emerging as two

different entities conform with the general anti-scientific feeling which permeates most of
further Sci-fi. Victor Frankenstein began influencing a tradition of mad scientists who
always ended up failing with their experiments, the creations, which, by their turn, revolted
against their masters. It is possible to argue, therefore, that this early critique against the
fast and scientific advancements of the 19 th century contributed to the idea that science
only produces monsters, and that "Science fiction is thus really anti-science fiction"
(BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 32).

One final observation worth mentioning, which is observable from Shelley to Wells,
is the consequences of the actions in the stories. According to Brantlinger:

But the nightmare of reason has expanded and turned outward in

 33

the (...) the nightmare of reason has expanded and turned outward in the
evolution from Gothic to science fiction. Again, the scale of disaster is
individual and inward in the earlier form, but social and often cosmic in
the later one. This fact might suggest that science fiction makes more
rational connections with the real world than does the Gothic romance.
(BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 40)

In Shelley, the consequences of the Monster's revolt are intimately related to

Frankensntein's actions and reflect his misjudgment regarding scientific creation –
although the Monster's own responsibility and self-consciousness may reflect also his own
responsibility. The same is true with Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll, who desired to take advantage
in his state of duplicity which had been repressed by some time. In Wells' fiction the scope
is wider and does not reflect much of the individuality of the characters 7 but rather the state
of scientific advancement as a whole. All three works reflect the same point of intersection
among the genres, though with a distinct progressive approach to the central character's
individuality and the consequences of the scientific discoveries, reaching a far broader
level of extrapolation in Wells, at the turn of the 19th century.

Therefore, it is possible to determine where the barriers lay and whether the apparent
continuous system of Gothic tendencies can be broken, so a new genre with distinct, and
yet similar, features can emerge. If one considers David Punter's suggestion of treatment of
the gothic as “a historically delimited genre or as a more wide-ranging and persistent
tendency within fiction as a whole” (PUNTER apud HOGLE, 2002, p. 193), it is possible
to argue that the “persistent tendency” made its way into Wells and other further writers,
through a natural dialogue between genres, changing itself into what was later to be called
Science fiction. In a similar sense, John Rieder, researcher of Sci-fi, defends a system
which permeates the works of fiction:

If Shelley's Frankenstein was not sf when it was written (see Rieder,

Colonialism 19), neither, a fortiori, were Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726)
or Lucian's True History. The important point is that the emergence of sf
has to do, not with the first appearance of a certain formal type, nor with
when the term "science fiction" was first used or by whom, but rather
with the appearance of a system of generic identities that articulates the
various terms that cluster around sf. (2010, p. 200)

7 The focus of his fiction seems to be the scientific possibilities created, while the characters do not have the
same individual depth as Shelley's and Stevenson's.
 34

A natural dialogue through this "system of generic identities" seems the most
interesting option when treating those genres which intersect. This thesis does not state
such definite assumptions about the origin of the Sci-fi genre, though. On the contrary, the
objective is to establish genres as constantly evolving structures, which are simply born
from other genres, as well as consider the presence of multiple genres in the same text, as
stated by Tzvetan Todorov. Thus, the representation of both genres, Gothic and Science
fiction, will be analyzed, according to their conventions. In the case of Science fiction,
there the way in which science is specified in the fiction of the present authors will be a
key to determine how the genre came to be something ever more detached from the older
Gothic.
 35

2 BUILDING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN

GOTHIC AND SCIENCE FICTION

A classic Gothic tale, with a structure based on several accounts, Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein is also a forerunner of themes which would only be approached at the end of
the century. The Creature as a reflection of its creator, Frankenstein, is an anticipation of
the “double” figure, with its uncertainty regarding the character's identity, a device which
would be most notoriously recovered in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Moreover, the use of science as a crucial point in Frankenstein's narrative, as well as the
discussion concerning the consequences of its mishandling, defines the book not only as a
prelude to the fin-de-siècle Gothic present in Robert Louis Stevenson, but also an early
example of what would later be called the genre of Science fiction.

In this sense, this chapter is going to apply a psychoanalytical approach to

Frankenstein and Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in order to unveil the relations
of meaning which represent the Gothic genre to which both of them are inevitably bound.
It is believed that Sigmund Freud's works on Metapsychology are useful to interpret the
struggle portrayed in those works, not only because of the time proximity – in a way
Freud's studies follow a scientific logic which is a product of the scientific development
present in Shelley and Stevenson – but also because they try to work out the repressed
desires which end up shaping the character's actions through their respective stories. Thus,
Freudian concepts of the “repression”, the “unconscious”, as well as the “uncanny”, will be
considered in the analysis of how Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll deal with their counterparts,
in which context they appear and what they may represent. Another convenient concept to
the analysis is the “double”, most broadly developed by Otto Rank, which will be brought
as a complement to Freud's theories, due to their close psychological proximity.

Likewise, from the Gothic aspects present in the works of fiction, an analysis will be
carried on in order to identify how they evolved into Science fiction tropes, as they would
be later recognized. Here the mood of a modern, scientific world, is observed, as the
 36

characters in both the novel and the novella find themselves deeply connected to their
work, which, by its turn, reflects strongly on their personal lives. The approach to science
itself and its jargon is still very simple in its details, without any specification, fictional as
it may be, regarding the processes through which the “monster-creation” may take place.
Nevertheless, the scientific discussion present here is very important and follows the same
logic of a pessimistic tone in criticizing a scientific practice without moral limits, as
Frankenstein's and Jekyll's. Ultimately, the question of morality is placed upon the
characters themselves, in a sense revealing that science, a specific knowledge, is just the
means through which their inner desires may materialize.

Through this dialogue, it is possible to say that the Gothic and the Science fiction
traits present in Mary Shelley and Robert Louis Stevenson are two separate genres, but
they are also one and the same thing.

2.1 FRANKENSTEIN: “A HIDEOUS PROGENY”

One of the core works in 19th century English fiction, Frankenstein has gained the
status of a modern myth (BALDICK, 1987). The constant adaptations of its main formula
to other books, movies, among other media, justifies this label of an ever-changing
narrative. And although each new appropriation tends to add something new to the
scientist-creature dialogue and the pessimistic view of science––or its mishandling by men,
depending on the interpretation–– Mary Shelley's work tends to be identified as the starting
point behind an entire tradition. Frankenstein ends up not only finding its roots in Gothic
fiction, with its suspenseful structure of multiple narrators and an apparently supernatural
being; it is also often considered the first book of what would later be called Science
fiction (KINKAID, 2008) since it deals with scientific principles within a scientific world.

A special care will be given to the genesis of the novel since it reveals much about
the context of its creation and its intentions. Afterward, Mary Shelley's book will be related
to posterior important appropriations of its formula, in order to visualize the progression of
the genres mentioned previously within the Frankenstein tradition. Finally, a brief
discussion will intend to place the novel within a convergence of genres, which would
 37

influence the future of a literary perception. Looking for how the book anticipates a single
genre, it is expected that an analysis of the contribution of Gothic will bring more light to
the discussion of Frankenstein's place and influence in literature, a place perhaps not even
conceived by its author. Her "hideous progeny" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 358), prospered to a
level of creating perhaps the most recognizable figure – be it the Monster, or
"Frankenstein", as it is often mistakenly called – in fiction as a whole.

2.1.1 Mary Shelley’s Life and Her Masterpiece

Frankenstein was first published in 1818, two years after the fateful summer of its
first conception. Based on the diaries of the parties involved, several other authors, among
them Radu Florescu (1998), have reconstructed the stormy day of 1816, in which Mary
Shelley, her stepsister Claire Clairmont, her husband and poet Percy Shelley, the poet Lord
Byron and the doctor and aspiring writer John Polidori gathered in Vila Diodati, a house in
Lake Geneva rented by Byron, to discuss science and ghost stories. In this rendering of the
genesis of the book, the duplicity of genres is already visible––the union of Science to
Gothic in the creation of the ghost patterns, But, for now, it is important to examine the
Gothic traits surrounding the environment which contributed to form the tone of the book.

As the stormy weather prevented them from going out, Byron proposed to read to the
group a story from the book Fantasmagoriana, or a Collection of the Histories of
Apparitions, Spectres, Ghosts, etc., in which a husband discovers that his wife turned into a
corpse (FLORESCU, 1998). After a discussion pertaining to the scientific probabilities of
animation, Byron proposes a challenge in which everyone there should write a ghost story,
which is accepted, since, besides Percy Shelley and Byron – the great poets of the group –
the other members also had the habit of writing. In her Preface to the third edition of
Frankenstein, Mary Shelley reveals her feelings in face of the task of writing which would
have turned out to be the most successful book to spring from that Summer:

I busied myself to think of a story, – a story to rival those which had

excited us to this task. One which would speak to the mysterious fears of
our nature, and awaken thrilling horror – one to make the reader dread to
look round, to curdle the blood, and quicken the beatings of the heart. If I
did not accomplish these things, my ghost story would be unworthy of its
name. (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 355-56)
 38

We can imagine with what enthusiasm and motivation Mary Shelley plunged into the
task of creating a piece of Gothic fiction capable of meeting the standards of Byron and
Shelley. According to her statement above, she looked up to the classics of the genre
available in her time as models, among which it is certain that she had read at least Horace
Walpole's The Castle of Otranto, Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho, and Matthew
Lewis' The Monk in previous years (Florescu, 1998); besides, of course, having read plenty
of Percy Shelley’s and Lord Byron’s poetry, always entwined in Gothic themes.
According to Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, the aim of a good classic Gothic story, as they
were understood at that time, was to "point somehow toward an aesthetic based on
pleasurable fear" (1986, p. 11). Ultimately, this is the major element present in all great
Gothic stories of all time. If the genre has been changing and adapting constantly, it is in
order to keep serving the same goal. The puzzle about why people feel such intense
aesthetic pleasure in stories related to horror, terror and fear provoked Sigmund Freud into
carrying out his own research, which culminated in the seminal essay about the double,
“The Uncanny” (1919).

Mary Shelley’s personal anxiety must have contributed to the themes of life and
creation presented in her book. There she was, in the presence of the two most famous
Romantic poets of all time; she had eloped with Shelley (by then a married man) and was a
guest in Byron’s house. She had recently been pregnant and had lost her first child. Now
she was prey to nightmares. Her deceased baby, Mary Jane, kept returning to her in a
recurring dream. In this sense, the rounds of talks about reanimation were in tune with the
author's preoccupations in life, reflected in the Gothic theme of her work. Victor
Frankenstein’s project intends to "give birth" to a being independently from the natural
forms of conception. Mary Shelley’s negative association with the concepts of life, birth,
and death precedes the present loss of her baby and remounts to her own birth, which was
followed by the death of Mary Wollstonecraft, her mother. Such traumatic train of
experiences, associated with the fact that she had eloped with a married man (whose wife
would commit suicide) can be translated into nightmares about the repression of sexual
desire. This sexual repression can be perceived in Victor Frankenstein's refusal to creating
a female counterpart to his Creature, as well as in the his, the Creature's, revenge toward
Elizabeth, who is never sexually fulfilled in her wedding night.
 39

2.1.2 A Psychoanalytical Reading of The Gothic in the Novel

Considering Sigmund's Freud work on psychoanalysis, repression is one of the
possible destinies of an instinct (1984). The repression occurs because the satisfaction of
certain instincts, though possible, "would be irreconcilable with other claims and
intentions. It would, therefore, cause pleasure in one place and unpleasure in another"
(FREUD, 1984, p. 146). The repressed instinct, thus, is located in an unconscious level,
because it is opposed to the regulatory desires of the conscious Ego. There, however, the
repressed desire is only in a latent state, "continuing to exist in the unconscious, (...)
organizing itself further, putting out derivatives and establishing connections" (FREUD,
1984, p. 148). The common distinction of the levels of consciousness and unconsciousness
is made between the Ego, "the surface of the mental apparatus" (FREUD, 1984, p. 357),
closely related to the outside world, and the Id, the channel through which the Ego
dialogues with the repressed instincts.

The formula "Frankenstein = Ego ↔ the Monster = Id" is simplistic but gives us a
direct notion of the levels of consciousness present in the novel. As a metaphor of
Frankenstein's repression, the creature naturally shows a destructive behavior, akin to the
Id, "which contains the passions" (FREUD, 1984, p. 364). Following this psychoanalytical
interpretation, the creature's revolt against his creator would be inevitable, and not only a
product of Victor's lack of care regarding him. Nevertheless, the abandonment by the
young natural philosopher certainly influenced the embroilment of his relationship with the
creature, as it is noticeable through the creature's discourse of rebellion throughout the
novel. "Do your duty towards me," says the creature, "and I will do mine towards you and
the rest of mankind" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 125).

The reason for the repression of Frankenstein's sexual instincts in relation to

Elizabeth may be read to the extent of their kinship. Although adopted by Victor's family,
she is described by the narrator as his "more than sister" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 323), a
simultaneous reminder of a) her familial relation to him and b) the overvaluing of this
same relation as something of more importance. Their wedding would be incompatible due
to this supposed sister-brother relationship, which is not real but is reassured in the text.
The taboo of an incestuous connection is indeed a fitting theme to the Gothic novel, but
here the common gender logic is reversed, as it was already pointed out by Anne Mellor:
 40

(...) the female-authored Gothic novel, most notably in the works of Ann
Radcliffe, Charlotte Dacre, Sophia Lee, and Emily Brontë, explores the
cultural repression of all female sexual desire in the name of the chaste,
modest, proper lady – a lady confined within a patriarchal bourgeois
domesticity and often menaced by a looming threat of incest. (SCHOR,
2003, 12).

Mary Shelley subverts not only the tradition of the Female Gothic, choosing a male
figure as her protagonist rather than the helpless heroine, but also of the Male Gothic, since
both approaches concern the "female" through different angles, as Anne Williams (1995)
argues in her Art of Darkness. Although not oppressed by patriarchal society, Victor may
still be read as a sufferer of sexual repression through a more subtle interpretation of the
relations found in the novel, as well as the acknowledgment of Elizabeth as an important
character for all the conflicts which ensue, despite her not being the protagonist. Since
Frankenstein cannot have Elizabeth, unconsciously, he is forced to spend his desire
elsewhere, through "substutive formation" (FREUD, 1984, p. 154), another Freudian
concept. The successful creation of the Monster is Victor's proof that he indeed does not
need a woman "to give life"; the "incestuous" sexual instinct8 is channeled to his scientific
experimentations. This realm of science, furthermore, is the masculine environment Victor
is most used to, a natural repository for him to repress his sexual energy from. However,
his practices are not fulfilled due to the Monster's subsequent aggressivity against his own
creator – partly justified due to Frankenstein's abandonment of him –, which is extended
to his loved ones, including Elizabeth. The process of repression was a failure, because it
only managed "to remove and replace the idea; it has failed altogether in sparing
unpleasure" (1984, p. 155), as Freud comments in one of his cases, similar to this, in which
a patient channels the fear of his father to a fear of wolves. The Monster's abhorrent
appearance is a reminder of the protagonist's lack of care regarding the entire enterprise of
the creation of life; Victor's obsession resided only in the act of creation itself, following
the anguish of dealing with his repression regarding Elizabeth, rather than its
consequences.

His persistence in going on with his marriage plans, albeit the Monster's constant
threats – "I will be with you on your wedding-night" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 93) – may still

8 In Freud's studies, the incest taboo – of the child in relation to his mother – is born and overcame in the
Oedipus complex, a central term for the understanding of all of his Metapsychology.
 41

be read as a certainty on Victor's part that his marriage with Elizabeth would never
materialize. In this sense, her death would be an unconsciously expected event for Victor,
rather than a surprising and tragic one. When one remembers that the Monster can yet be
interpreted as an extension of his creator, the young natural philosopher's guilt is still more
marked. This finally raises the common question when regarding Shelley's novel: where
does guilt reside, in the creator or in the creature? A psychoanalytical approach seems to be
more useful in analyzing Frankenstein's motivations, inside the logic of repression desires,
as it was proposed.

The question of Frankenstein and his Monster being interpreted as extensions of each
other leads up to the concept of the "double". George Levine, in analyzing the elements of
Frankenstein's metaphor, notes this aspect: "Frankenstein's obsession with science is
echoed in the Monster's obsession with destruction. The two characters haunt and hunt
each other through the novel, each evoking from us sympathy for their sufferings,
revulsion from their cruelties" (LEVINE, 1982, p. 15). Complementing this, Otto Rank 9, a
writer who perhaps most extensively developed the term, states that this impulse of
destruction makes the double's life intimately related to that of the other person (1971).
That is noticeable throughout the narrative in both of the characters' speech, but especially
in the Monster's final realization of his destiny once Frankenstein is finally dead: "'That is
also my victim!' he exclaimed: 'in his murder my crimes are consummated; the miserable
series of my being is wound to its close!'" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 240). The killing of the
double becomes inevitably the killing of the self: a suicide. Still following Rank's
psychoanalytical analysis, this death of the double "appears closely related to its
narcissistic meaning" (RANK, 1971, p. 69). In the case of Frankenstein, this could be
primarily observed in his ambition upon his project – his will to "play-God" and create life,
repressing his sexual feelings for Elizabeth.

The feeling of impotence is analyzed through a different and yet complementary

scope by Thomas Vargish. The author claims that the authority brought to the doctor via
technology leads to a level of individualism and unforeseen freedom which ends up
subverting his own being:

Radical self-determination can lead us out of the realm of the human, at

9Rank considers mostly the identical double, based on the tradition of Edgar A. Poe and Dostoievsky, as well
as the imagery of the mirror and the shadow, but there are still other important aspects to be applied here.
 42

least out of the traditionally human. Paradoxically, the consequent

psychological crisis can be expressed in terms of impotence; the power
lures us to a social, ethical, emotional desert, to death rather than life.
(VARGISH, 2009, p. 336)

Whether this impotence could be extended to the sexual sphere is a hypothesis that
would deviate from Vargish's proposal, who analyzes the loss of human ethics in terms of
unlimited access for one to exercise his own individualism, which forcibly, in the case of
Frankenstein, comes from scientific and technological advancement. However on the more
general analysis this thesis presents, it is interesting to once more add the influence of
science to the psychoanalytical realm, and the impotence of a beaten Dr. Frankenstein in
face of his deserted creation in parallel to his impossibility of uniting with Elizabeth.

Once the Monster is born and represents only a threat, in Frankenstein's view,
however, the only object of satisfaction to the self is his death, the Monster's and his own,
since his life loses purpose without his loved ones, being reduced to a quest of vengeance:

“Oh! when will my guiding spirit, in conducting me to the daemon, allow

me the rest I so much desire; or must I die, and he yet live? If I do, swear
to me, Walton, that he shall not escape; that you will seek him, and satisfy
my vengeance in his death.” (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 230)

Related to this notion of the double is Freud's unheimlich, or "uncanny", which refers
to "that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long
familiar" (FREUD, 1994, p. 220). This element which is known was primarily forgotten,
once again, through the process of repression. The Monster himself is not familiar to
Frankenstein through his appearance; he is actually an unprecedented creature in the
realms of science and life. But the uncanny can still be grasped if one remembers that the
repressed instinct that the Monster represents is resumed in Victor's desires towards his
"more than sister". When the Monster emerges, he does so as a reminder that his creator's
intentions of channeling his desires are a failure, as is the process of repression. The
uncanny thus composes Freud's notions of consciousness and unconsciousness,
establishing the context in which elements of this latter level may appear to the conscious,
i. e., when the process of repression cannot avoid displeasure. This final sensation is
caused by the Monster's actions, by their turn a product of Victor, closing the Freudian
 43

circle in which all influences depart from the self only to find their way back to it
(FREUD, 1984).

Ultimately, a psychoanalytical approach allows for an inner analysis of

Frankenstein's motivations beyond the point of considering his scientific ambition – his
will to play-God, though not clearly referred as so – as the sole reason for his creation and
further misfortune. Undoubtedly a narcissistic force, still in Freud's terms, is at stake here,
but the acknowledgment of other repressed elements additionally helps the overall analysis
of the book, especially regarding the whole of Elizabeth in the novel.

2.1.3 Other Gothic Conventions

Following Sedgwick's treatment of the Gothic in her The Coherence of Gothic
Conventions, it is possible to find many other Gothic traits in Frankenstein. The author
explains, for example, the relation between the self and something that should belong to it,
but is ultimately separated by some kind of barrier (1986). This can be perceived in
Victor's separation from his ambitions by the norms and morals of society, as well as, as it
was already analyzed, his separation from Elizabeth due to her kinship with him. Sedgwick
also points the aspect of the unspeakable as an important feature of the Gothic. The clearer
example of this aspect is the moment in which Victor beholds his finished creation and,
speechless, abandons him:

“How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate

the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to
form? (...) I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation;
but now that I had finished it, the beauty of the dream had vanished, and
breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 85)

The unspeakable, the surprise of beholding the Monster coming to life is the action
which triggers all further conflicts in the narrative. Had Victor Frankenstein remained by
his creature to support it, in spite of all wretchedness, the double figures might have
harmonized so as to avoid further conflict. The unspeakable horror of abandoning his own
progeny is described by Sedgwick as the heart of this "story within a story within a story."
(1986, p. 19).
 44

The three narrators in Frankenstein, therefore, correspond to three levels of narrative

information, or experience. The Monster's account, the climax, told in the middle of the
book, is the inner story which reflects Captain Walton's perception of Victor Frankenstein's
perception of what he heard the Monster say, in the same way that Frankenstein’s narrative
is subject to Walton's perception. This sort of structure not only filters and reinforces the
Unspeakable in the narrative, as no character gets to master the complete story, but also
contributes to the suspense that marks the narrative. The reader is kept constantly
expecting for something to happen: Walton's narrative gives a glimpse of the pursuit
between Frankenstein and the Monster, which would only unfold at the very end.

Based on the elements discussed, we can see the ways in which Mary Shelley's novel
is inserted into the Gothic tradition. However, besides representing Gothic structures,
Frankenstein also carries a number of innovations which enable the creation of a new
genre, later to be called Science fiction. The relation between the two genres is very close,
as one represents the development of some of the characteristics of the other. Stevenson's
novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde carries on this legacy of the scientific
discussion, also following the inner Gothic approaches to characters as seen in Shelley's
novel. Let us now consider the innovations it brings and its relation with the creation of the
new genre that would later be known as Science Fiction.

2.1.4 Gothic and Sci-Fi in the Novel: A Negotiation

This comment on Frankenstein is being written two hundred years after the story
was created. We can rely on the comfortable critical expertise granted by a very competent
historicizing of the genre that did not exist in the times when Gothic fiction was dismissed
as a secondary class of entertainment. Now we can, for instance, analyze the development
of the genre in stages and, looking backward, examine the ways in which Frankenstein
both fits into this tradition, and changes it.
The classical texts by Walpole, Radcliffe, and Lewis that Mary Shelley used as
support to create Frankenstein are indeed quite different from her masterpiece.. We are far
from that original formula, in many ways. whose conventions are perhaps too naïve to
account for the complex treatment of evil, horror, and terror that is demanded in our time.
Still, the psychological aspect has the power to be always renewed and somehow managed
to remain as efficient as ever. Professor Julio França identifies a triad of elements that
 45

apply to all stages of Gothic fiction, and that is very evident in Frankenstein. The first is
the locus horribilis, represented in the ancestral homes, reshaped into Victor Frankenstein’s
laboratory. The second element is the return of the past as a haunting force: Frankenstein
shuns his creature and factually flees to the end of the world (i.e., the North Pole) in his
attempt to escape from his past. The third element in the triad is The Monster, or “the ways
to deal with evil within”. (França, 2015). The nominal treatment given to the corpse
reanimated by Frankenstein says much not only about the different stages in the
development of Gothic or Sci-Fi, but mainly about the social developments that provoked
those aesthetic changes. At the beginning of the critical fortune of Mary Shelley’s novel,
the tendency for the reader was to think of a disturbing “Monster” and to identify with
Victor Frankenstein’s predicament. But the most interesting phenomenon is that brought
about in the movie personification by Boris Karloff, when the double is reunited, and both
creature and creator are referred to by the same name, “Frankenstein”.
There are critics who refuse to constrain the genre to a fixed set of rules. James Watt,
in his book Contesting the Gothic, acknowledges that the genre is a modern construct
whose categorization does not do justice to its diversity:

Though the genre of the Gothic romance clearly owes its name to the
subtitle of The Castle of Otranto’s second edition, ‘A Gothic Story’, the
elevation of Walpole’s work to the status of an origin has served to grant
an illusory stability to a body of fiction which is distinctly heterogeneous.
(...) any categorization of the Gothic as a continuous tradition, with a
generic significance, is unable to do justice to the diversity of the
romances which are now accommodated under the ‘Gothic’ label, and
liable to overlook the often antagonistic relations that existed between
different works or writers. (2004, p. 1)

David Punter also offers two possibilities of approach to the development of the
Gothic, as mentioned at the end of the previous chapter. Both authors stress the ways in
which the Gothic adapts to the passing of time and to the new ways of expressing tension.
Frankenstein occupies an important space in this road of changes. On the one hand, it
partakes many of the characteristics of the Old School; on the other, it clearly opens the
doors to several new perspectives. As an example, we refer to the fact that Frankenstein
can be considered either a “Male” or a “Female” Gothic work. This classification has been
much used after Ellen Moers published her chapter on “Female Gothic” in the book
 46

Literary Women (Moers, 1977). From that moment onwards, “Male Gothic” became an
expression used to refer to texts from the old school, written by men, with male
protagonists who represent what is to be considered wright and fight different forms of
external evil. Moers stresses the fact that in Gothic narratives written by women, with
female protagonists, things operate in a different way. It becomes difficult to separate evil
within and evil without, and the emphasis in the narrative turns into psychological
oppression rather than into supernatural events. In the case of Frankenstein, we have a
narrative with male characters (Walton, Frankenstein, The Creature) who can be seen as
protagonists, antagonists, or narrators. They belong in a book written by a woman who has
been pregnant – and probably worried whether she would give birth to a healthy child.
Who was in mourning for the loss of her child – and possibly felt responsible for that loss.
Mary Shelley was also the offspring of a mother who died in giving birth to her. More
blame could be added into the bargain, let alone the fear of dying in the process of giving
birth, a reality which was too concrete in her life experience. Considering the sum of all
fears, it was not surprising that she had the nightmare in which The Creature appeared for
the first time.
Mary Shelley’s novel preserves the strong characteristics of Old Male Gothic, but it
also undeniably introduces the psychological nuances that will be finalized by later 19 th
Century authors such as Charlotte and Emily Brontë. Robert Heilman, writing about the
novel Villette in in his essay “Charlotte Brontë's ‘New’ Gothic”, is sensible to the fact that
Brontë "finds new ways to achieve the ends served by old Gothic", focusing on "the
intensification of feelings" (Heilman, 1967, p. 121). The Male Gothic relates to a time in
which evil was associated with an external supernatural influence, when there is a great
distance separating good and evil, protagonist and antagonist. In the Female Gothic, as the
conflict is usually subjective and psychological, it becomes more difficult to determine
who is right or who is wrong, or whose point of view is the one to be subscribed by the
reader.
In Frankenstein, there is room for both traditions. The reader is not less affected by
the Monster because it is associated with scientific rationality. On the contrary, the fact that
scientific knowledge could evolve to provoke the creation of such a situation is more
frightening than the former imaginary ghosts. In Mary Shelley's novel, besides the
elements of the conventional Gothic, there is the introduction of a new treatment of science
–the scientific environment, the use, though incipient, of scientific principles to be further
 47

extrapolated, as well as the pessimistic tone of the narrative – are sufficient to initiate, and
influence, the tendency of Science Fiction.

Remembering the discussion regarding Sci-fi in Chapter 1, especially Kinkaid's

concept of a "web of resemblances", it is possible to apply this approach to Gothic and Sci-
fi, and particularly to Frankenstein. As observed, several are the elements from the Gothic
and further Sci-fi which can be analyzed in the novel. Therefore, Shelley's novel belongs
both to the Gothic, due to the aspects previously mentioned, and to Science fiction, due to
its interest in the scientific field through fiction, as it will be later specified. Furthermore,
Frankenstein may be considered the turning point in which the early examples of Sci-fi
books, recognized as such, emerged, through developments of the Gothic genre; although it
would be precipitate to consider it the founder of the genre, since Sci-fi later evolved
beyond its first established traits. Ultimately, Gothic and Science fiction, in Frankenstein
and other works, share common aspects, especially the questioning of rationality, as
Brantlinger defends in his "The Gothic Origins of Science Fiction", suggesting that "the
conventions of both Gothic and science fiction involve a rejection or a symbolic putting to
sleep of reason (...) (1980, p. 31). Now Frankenstein's anticipation of the Sci-fi genre is
left to be examined, as well as its important influence in later fiction.

2.1.5 Frankenstein’s Legacy and Science Fiction

Galvanism, electricity, and several other types of scientific influence can be observed
in the Gothic genesis of Frankenstein. To begin with, there are the discussions concerning
the nature of life and its creation as held by the famous group in the Summer of 1816. They
were used as inspirational material in the writing of Mary Shelley’s story, providing the
uncanny background needed for the author to achieve her final effect. In the Preface of the
third edition of the book, Mary Shelley notes:

Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley,
to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these,
various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the
nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its
ever being discovered and communicated. They talked of the experiments
of Dr. Darwin, (...) who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till
 48

by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.

Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be
reanimated; galvanism had given a token of such things: perhaps the
component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together,
and endued with vital warmth. (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 356-57)

Erasmus Darwin (1732-1802) (Charles Darwin's grandfather) was much admired by

Percy Shelley, who transmitted his enthusiasm to his wife (FLORESCU, 1998). His
experiments related to the properties of electricity as a principle of creation were similar to
those of Italian physicist Luigi Galvani (1737-1798), who was famous for having produced
movement in frogs through a relation between electrical shocks and the nervous system of
the animals (FLORESCU, 1998). Galvanism is indeed the main scientific theoretical path
followed by Victor Frankenstein in the story, the principle through which the experiment
ultimately functions, yet it is only mentioned in the third edition. Although by her Preface
one could assume that Mary Shelley's interest in science was born on that day, when
researching on her life it is easy to notice that the author already had some acquaintance
with the matter; instead the spooky and stormy day served as the final touch in which all
came together––fictional imagination and scientific hypothesis.

The work of another man of science, Sir Humphry Davi, was also important for
Mary Shelley to reach the idea of a modification of nature, crucial to Victor Frankenstein's
character (Schor, 2003, 17-18). Sir Humphry was part of the circle of acquaintances of
William Godwin (Mary Shelley's father) and was frequently present in their household.
Godwin is the philosopher who introduced the doctrine of Anarchism. He educated his
daughter and other children at home, where "knowledge, scientific as well as literary, were
equally available" (SCHOR, 2003, p. 29). William Godwin was considered a controversial
writer in his time due to his radical writings about individual emancipation––and may be
said to have served as an important influence to his daughter through his writings,
especially the ones about occultism. Mary Shelley printed her father’s book Lives of the
Necromancers in 1834, in which we find reference to some alchemists mentioned in
Frankenstein, such as Cornelius Agrippa, most admired by Victor and of fundamental
importance to the opposition between the old scientific practices and those in the present
reality of the character.

Mary Shelley, thus, undoubtedly had some scientific background previous to her stay
at Villa Diodati. This pioneering junction is still more evident when the nomenclature to
 49

science is closely considered. The term "science" would only acquire its modern meaning
during the 19th century; although the term already existed in the English language since the
Middle Ages, it was first considered a mere synonym to "knowledge". In the course of
time, science "stood for a particular kind of knowledge––firmer and less fallible
knowledge" (ROSS, 1962, p. 67-68). This is why, in Frankenstein, scientists are still called
"natural philosophers"; and the field Victor Frankenstein deepens his studies is,
consequently, natural philosophy. Therefore, when the terms "science", "scientist" or
"scientific" are used in this thesis in relation to Shelley's book, it is important to remember
that the usage is made retrospectively, and that – ultimately – we are dealing with a sort of
anachronism.

The book is thus set at a crossroad, at the start of the scientific expansion that would
dominate the century and define modern science. This struggle can be felt in Victor's
inclination towards the metaphysical ambition of the outdated authors of the past, in
opposition to the practices of modern science. In Victor's vision, when studying modern
science, he "was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little
worth" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 75). The scientist preserves the ambition of old alchemists in
an age in which the studies of nature, later to be called "sciences", are suffering an
important change of progressively losing these ambitions. At the same time, considering
that the Monster is the product of a growing modern science, there is also a critique to the
limits of this evolving practice, which, in Shelley's book, culminates with the scientific
usurpation of a fundamentally natural process: the creation of life.

The fact that this formula created by Shelley––the scientist struggling with his
desires––became particularly recurrent in 19th century works, such as Robert Louis
Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and H. G. Wells's The Island of
Doctor Moreau, shows the importance of Shelley's insight into the discussions to come. In
Stevenson, scientific ambition causes Dr. Jekyll's inmost tendencies to emerge and
personify themselves in the figure of Mr. Hyde, who, as the Monster, represents its master's
double, ultimately causing destruction. In Wells the effect is the same, only with a more
solid scientific background that would later dominate the Sci-fi genre: Dr. Moreau is
pushed away from society due to his subversive experiments in which animals are
vivisected and hypnotized, in order to become "humans"; however, the so-called Beast
People constantly return to their original animal form, consequently turning against their
 50

master.

It is not an overstatement to call Victor Frankenstein the father of these and many
other scientist figures of later Gothic and Sci-fi literature. That does not necessarily mean,
however, that Frankenstein is the father of all Sci-fi. Returning to Kinkaid's perspective, no
Sci-fi work is able to contain all the meaning the genre can express. What is argued in the
present thesis, instead, is that Frankenstein, or the Frankensteinian scientist, may be
assuredly placed as the main influence to the line of works which would culminate in the
properly called Science fiction genre. Since the genre was established, however, many
other relations could be made to works even previous to Shelley's masterpiece, still within
the borders of Sci-fi.

Being the first in the tradition of mad scientists, Shelley's novel accordingly lacks
much of the scientific precision which would be evident in later writers/scientists such as
H. G. Wells. When Victor discovers the "secret" of creation, for example, the author relies
more on a literary rather than scientific language:

I paused, examining and analysing all the minutiae of causation, as

exemplified in the change from life to death, and death to life, until from
the midst of this darkness a sudden light broke in upon me — a light so
brilliant and wondrous, yet so simple, that while I became dizzy with the
immensity of the prospect which it illustrated, I was surprised that among
so many men of genius who had directed their inquiries towards the same
science, that I alone should be reserved to discover so astonishing a
secret. (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 79-80)

Although later on Victor explains that no specification could be made, should others
follow the same path he had, the reader must remember that Mary Shelley––even having
the set of influences already mentioned––was only an enthusiast of the subject she was
depicting. This can be observed when the Monster awakens:

“It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment

of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, collected the
instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the
lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the
rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt
out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull
yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive
motion agitated its limbs.” (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 84-85)
 51

In the excerpt above the vague and poetical expression "instruments of life" is used
to refer to the procedures used to create the Monster, which, added to Frankenstein’s visits
to charnel houses to collect bones, in the previous chapter, are the only few examples of
how science is dealt with in the first edition of the book. This lack of scientific facts,
however, should not be seen as a flaw in the book. Considering Frankenstein's legacy, it is
evident that its contribution to Sci-Fi goes beyond the precision in the presentation of
scientific facts – an aspect that was considerably refined by later writers. Taking advantage
of the established Gothic conventions about the irrational, Mary Shelley introduced the
"anti-scientific pessimism" (Brantlinger, 1980, p. 32), which became the most recurrent
aspect of Sci-Fi as a medium. Excessive optimism about science is always brought, in this
sense, as a warning to what its mishandling can cause. Since its development is
unstoppable, a consequence of evolution, its questioning must always be pursued.

In addition to that, Frankenstein breathes science, or natural philosophy, through all

its pages. Science is present in the crucial moments of the story, and its consequences are
felt even when it is not mentioned by its name, in the figure of the created Monster, its
anguish and destruction. There is no way, hence, to consider Shelley's novel placed out of
the Sci-fi genre, since it constituted its first developments. And at the same time, however,
there is no doubt that Frankenstein's legacy, from the multiple influences of its origins to
the legacy left in literature as a whole, has grown far outside the borders of Shelley's initial
"hideous progeny". Gothic is fundamental for the atmosphere and thrilling fear caused by
the irrationality of the Monster; while Sci-fi reinforces the threatening aspect of the book,
the possibility of its creation. In this sense, the story also exemplifies the discussion about
the origin and evolution and genres, showing that literature, as a human practice, tends to
be flexible concerning its themes and its placing in different genres, which, by their turn,
may also share common elements without losing their peculiarities. As Todorov claims, a
single work of fiction may manifest different genres (1975), which will all contribute to its
themes and message. Frankenstein, then, both deals with Gothic sensations and techniques
of suspense as with Science fiction speculation and pessimism, anticipating the formation
of the latter genre.

Finally, Frankenstein, besides being a literary text subject to its placing in different
genres, is also a modern myth. This is no novelty since the novel itself is based on myths,
 52

namely, the myth of creation from the Genesis and Milton's Paradise Lost (a book the
Monster reads) and the Promethean myth, both of which reflect the relationship between
transgression and punishment (ZIOLKOWSKI, 1981). The book is a double like
Frankenstein and its Monster in several ways. It is a literary text, with all its particular
features; but it is also an enduring myth, whose scientist-creation relationship turned out to
be intimately related to its age of fast scientific evolution––and is fated to be ever-present
as long as scientific practices are questioned.

2.2 STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE: A POST-

DARWINIAN FRANKENSTEIN

Gothic conventions abounded in 19th century English novels, which explored

different perceptions of this same mode of writing which has to do with fear, the
unspeakable, taboo. While Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an heir to the sentimentalism of
the female Gothic inaugurated by Ann Radcliffe – which would follow in the Brontë
sisters' writing –, the book also explores a new thematic realm to be explored on its own:
that of the scientific world which added new anxieties by enabling the creation, or
manifestation, of man's inner repressed fears. That pessimist approach to the evolution of
science influenced many other works to come, not to say that the genre of Science fiction
itself. Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is perhaps the
most immediate heir to Shelley's legacy, bringing the discussion to the end of the century.
Here, the Darwinist theories had already affected people's stability, questioning their place
as the modern being by presenting their line of evolution alongside.

More than continuing the development of the “scientist” theme, Stevenson's famous
novella shifted classic Gothic scenery elements of previous stories to give space to the
modern city. The predominance of nature and old buildings – Gothic architecture per se –,
present in the tradition from Ann Radcliffe to the Brontë sisters, is now replaced by the
suffocated confinements of the streets and rooms of London, which serve their purpose to
the express the identity anxieties present in the book. The Gothic, therefore, previously a
“'mixed' genre”, both affected and acting as an influence to romantic patterns (HOGLE,
 53

2002), now abandoned some of those same elements in order to represent the modern
Victorian society. The fears and the monsters, however, following Mary Shelley's tradition,
are still very present, perhaps more terrifying due to their proximity to the reading public,
and, in a further level, their existence inside the modern man himself. It is not a secret that
Mr. Hyde became a still more striking double-figure than Shelley's Monster, an
acknowledgment that, rather than diminishing Shelley's work, only shows how
successfully the classic Gothic theme could be reworked into modern sensibilities.

2.2.1 Robert Louis Stevenson and the Fin de Siècle

Scottish author R. L. Stevenson's place in the ending of the 19 th century is timely
reflected in the psychological character of some of his work, especially his most famous
work Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), which became an archetype for the
question of duality in men. The author, very eclectic in his writing, also produced other
works which expressed a homage to boyhood, such as the adventure novels Treasure
Island and Kidnapped, which became to be known as examples of an imperial fiction.
Nevertheless, it is still Jekyll and Hyde – a book that touched the inner imperial
sensibilities in a deeper level –, considered by many as “the most sophisticated of
Stevenson's narratives” (SAPOSNIK, 1971, p. 715), which mostly contributed for the
universal appraisal of the author. The allegory of a doctor who manages to divide his
personality in two reflects its author's sharp sense of observation regarding the
environment he was placed in, allowing for many readings: as an example of atavism, the
fear of returning to a primitive state, which was brought to light by the theory of evolution;
a critique to the quick scientific advancement, which resulted in a deformation of natural
laws; and finally a call to the different positions assumed by people, either publicly and
privately. As “a pivotal figure for English literary culture on the brink of its development
into ‘modernism’ (POOLE, 2009, p. 258), Stevenson mirrored a world which was rapidly
transitioning to modernist, evaluative aesthetics.

Psychological theories related to the properties of the "ego", which would be later
specialized by Freud in the following decades, were already much in vogue in the fin de
siécle. Three years prior to the publication of Jekyll and Hyde, Henry Maudsley in ‘The
Disintegrations of the “Ego” discussed the multilayered aspect of the ego, as well as the
exaltation of some of these diverse parts. To the author, such disruptions of attitude
 54

regarding some people are translated in moral alterations (STEVENSON, 2006), the
precise case of what happens in Stevenson's novella through the figure of Mr. Hyde.
Stevenson himself maintained a correspondence with another psychologist of the time,
Frederic Meyers, who even wrote critical papers upon the author's work. ‘The Multiplex
Personality’, almost simultaneously published with Jekyll and Hyde, analyzes the causes
for the duplicity of mind, as well as its drawbacks or improvement upon the self.

These authors are examples of possible scientific influences to Stevenson's

discussion in his book, in which theories of the mind and Victorian personal anxieties are
mixed up with Gothic conventions of suspense and horror, creating an enduring work.
More than that, those early discussions represent a prelude to Freud and Rank's
psychoanalytical developments in the years to come, which helped likewise the revisiting
of the same themes which in part inspired them.

2.2.2 The Gothic Through the Double Personality

Dr. Jekyll, by giving “birth” to a creation of abhorrence which is an extension of
himself, places Stevenson's work as “a version of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster for a
post-Darwinian age” (POOLE, 2009, p. 265). The story, whose inspiration first came to
Stevenson in a dream – which is confessed in “A Chapter on Dreams” (STEVENSON,
2006) – can be read as a continuation, or revisiting, of Mary Shelley's theme in many ways.
In Stevenson, the figure of the double is still more evident, due to the fact that Jekyll and
Hyde are physically “the same”: they share the same body. And yet, they are absolutely
different in their appearance – the only point in which they deviate from Otto Rank's
identical double –, which are reflections of their levels of consciousness (Jekyll) and
unconsciousness (Hyde). The double is still a double due to all aspects analyzed in
Frankenstein through Rank, the persecution and dependence of one character over the
other, the never-ending cycle of violence which only ends in death.

As in Shelley's novel, the appearance of the respective creature is horrific and related
to the “unspeakable”, that which is difficult to be grasped. This dimension of unspeakable
is also reflected in the novel's structure, which aims to intensify the labyrinthine suspense
of the Gothic. Similar to Shelley, here the story is not narrated by its protagonist at first.
The third-person narrator is focused on Mr. Utterson's perspective, which is placed in the
 55

narrative to provide an external view to Jekyll's situation, and hide, until the last moment,
the horrific revelation that the two characters are actually one. The suspense is intensified
when Dr. Lanyon, another witness character, assumes the narration to describe Jekyll and
Hyde's transformation. The motives and intentions of the protagonist are only fully
revealed in the last chapter, finally narrated in the first person by Jekyll himself, in a letter.
The fact that, after this last epistolary chapter, the narration simply stops, not
acknowledging Utterson again, expresses a feeling of estrangement, as if nothing else
could be said or concluded after Jekyll's revelation – again, a trait of the “unspeakable” that
is manifested when the repressed come to the surface.

Jekyll's intention, of separating his “vicious self” from himself, so “life would be
relieved of all that was unbearable” (2006, p. 53), ends up giving to himself an identity of
its own, that of Mr. Hyde, similarly to Victor Frankenstein's action with the creation of the
Monster, an identity which manifests the self's repressed impulses. In the same way, the
destiny of Jekyll and Hyde is based on persecution and destruction, following Otto Rank's
analysis, which leads to Jekyll's suicide and Hyde consequent death. Definitely not a final
coincidence, both protagonists use scientific means to achieve their ends, although they are
more implied than described. This creates a discussion regarding the evolution of science
in different moments of the 19th century, unanimously regarded in a pessimistic sense, a
“monster creator”.

Regarding the Freudian concepts already discussed, it seems evident enough that Mr.
Hyde can be interpreted as Stevenson's version of Freud's Id, as is the Monster in
Frankenstein. The “uncanny” also fits here, since Hyde is familiar to Jekyll to the extent
that he represents the Ego's repressed desires; more than that, he is the embodiment, the
physical representation of those desires; finally, Hyde causes a feeling of estrangement in
everyone who sees him, relating to a sense of primitiveness which will be later discussed.
In this sense, the Id manifests the Ego's passions which have been long repressed and now
come to light, creating a conflict with the life of the self. The own name “Hyde” represents
this repression in two ways. The first time it appears, it does out of nowhere in the book as
something certain, a name and a surname, as if that identity was something familiar to
Jekyll, possibly as a lost part of himself – “I saw for the first time the appearance of
Edward Hyde” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 55). Secondly, “Hyde” is a homophone to the verb
“to hide”, a purposeful reminder of Edward Hyde's previous repressed state in relation to
 56

Henry Jekyll, which is actually alluded to by another character, Mr. Utterson, when he is
investigating the relation between the two men – “'If he shall be Mr. Hyde,' he had thought,
'I shall be Mr. Seek.'” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 14).

At firstc, the nature of this repression seems to point to violence as the essential force
which now is manifested in Hyde's aggression of the young girl in the beginning of the
novella, the murder of Carew consecutively, and finally the death of Dr. Lanyon, a product
of Hyde's transformation into Jekyll. However, the predominance of a masculine universe
in the book – indeed there are no female characters except for a servant which barely
appears – can be interpreted, as in Frankenstein, as a reflection to the protagonist's
repressed sexual desires, which, as a matter of fact, are never clearly referred to. The
closing chapter of the novella, “Henry Jekyll's full statement of the case”, helps the reader
to plunge into Jekyll's assumed motivations in creating the formula to divide himself, a
product of his dual nature:

(…) “the worst of my faults was a certain impatient gaiety of disposition

(…) such as I found it hard to reconcile with my imperious desire to carry
my head high, and wear a more than commonly grave countenance before
the public” (…) “I regarded and hid them [the irregularities] with an
almost morbid sense of shame”. (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 52)

The need of assuming two different identities – a “grave countenance” to conform to

the norms of Victorian society, without leaving behind a certain “gaiety of disposition” –
places Jekyll, from before his scientific experiment, as an essentially double individual.
This “gaiety of disposition” seems to point, as further interpretations do, to the repressed
urge for sexual desire. The film adaptation of 1931, for example, by Rouben Mamoulian,
added to the story two female characters who are evidently not present in Stevenson's
original work. Muriel appears as Jekyll's fiancée, and Ivy Pearson as a woman who tempts
an engaged Jekyll into loving her; these two characters thus create the context for the
manifestation of the doctor's vicious side: his need to divide himself both to accord to
Victorian moral norms, marrying Muriel, and pursue his other inclinations with Ivy. This
interpretation only hinted at in Stevenson's book, seems to agree with its intrinsically
Gothic structure in which what is not said matters as much as what is indeed declared – a
reminder of Sedgwick's notion of the unspeakable, here reflected in Jekyll's actions which
for some reason caused him a “morbid sense of shame”. In this sense, a possible
 57

interpretation may follow that the numerous manifestations of violence acted by Edward
Hyde can be analyzed as much as the products of his lack of a moral side – being he
repressed for so much time in relation to Jekyll –, as the instance that that calls the reader's
attention the most, the trait that determines Hyde as the primary Gothic villain, in
detriment of the unsaid sexual desires which represent the “unspeakable”.

Henry Jekyll's feeling of charging himself as the ultimate culprit of the entire
experiment – “the worst of my faults” – points yet to another Freudian concept which adds
to the relationship of the Ego and the Id: that of the Super-ego. According to the
psychoanalyst, this Ego-ideal

(…) is the heir of the Oedipus complex and thus it is also the expression
of the most powerful impulses and most important libidinal vicissitudes
of the Id. (...) Whereas the Ego is essentially the representative of the
external world, of reality, the Super-ego stands in contrast to it as the
representative of the internal world, of the Id. (FREUD, 1984, p. 376).

The Super-ego, establishing a close relationship with the Id, acts as an instance of
vigilance to the Id's possible eruptions. It is an heir to the Oedipus complex, assuming the
place of the authoritative father. From this perspective, the conflicts Jekyll faces are
understandable, as well as his classical portrayal as the “mad scientist”: the Ego has to
subject itself to a) the pressures of the outside world, the Victorian society which
demanded a “grave countenance” from it; b) the libido of the Id, with its repressed sexual
desires; and c) the severity of the Super-ego, creating a higher moral ideal for the Ego to
mirror himself.

In this case, being Jekyll the Ego and Hyde the Id, we may relate the latter not only
to his own impulses but also to the core which contains the consciousness – Henry Jekyll.
At an early point in the novella, the scientist still believes he has a certain power over his
counterpart: “(...) the moment I choose, I can be rid of Mr. Hyde” (STEVENSON, 2006, p.
19). It is this belief that drives Jekyll to continue with his double life until the last extent,
the certainty that he was the center from which only a small part had escaped, which could
sustain itself separately. As the story progresses, Hyde gains more space and importance, as
well as height, a subtle element which points out to a subsequent inversion of the center
which apparently could control all – “(...) it had seemed to me of late as though the body of
 58

Edward Hyde had grown in stature (…)” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 59). Moreover, the
transformations, previously only possible by the means of a formula, now could be done
naturally during sleep, without Jekyll noticing it:

“I must have stared upon it for near half a minute, sunk as I was in the
mere stupidity of wonder, before terror woke up in my breast as sudden
and startling as the crash of cymbals; and bounding from my bed, I
rushed to the mirror. (…) Yes, I had gone to bed Henry Jekyll, I had
awakened Edward Hyde.” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 58)

Everything was planned for Hyde to assume Jekyll's place, when the latter's space
was finally extinguished due to his repression in relation to Hyde. However, this inversion
never completely happens – the principle of reality governed by Jekyll cannot give way to
Hyde's principle of pleasure, at least not without deviating from Freud's theory in which
“the Ego tries to mediate between the world and the Id, to make the Id pliable to the world
and, by means of its muscular activity, to make the world fall in with the wishes of the Id.”
(FREUD, 1984, p. 398). As the protagonist fails to maintain this relationship of power, the
conflict reaches a climax of violence, akin to the double. The “body of a self-destroyer”
(STEVENSON, 2006, p. 41), now a singular body and never again the double, is once
again evidence of the shock which the acknowledgment of a double life could cause in
Victorian times. Jekyll's suicide – as all evidence points out 10 – can thus be read as the
ultimate conflict between the Ego and the Id, which lived until their origin was hidden, but
could not be revealed as having the same original self. Jekyll's fateful experiment is,
therefore, a metaphor of the complex relations of identity with which everyone has to deal,
following Freud's psychoanalytical analysis.

Finally, it is possible to refer to other important Gothic conventions, not entirely

comprised into the realm of psychoanalysis. Concerning the environment, the book takes
place in, for example, the claustrophobic scenery of the city of London and the inner
spaces of its houses is a sharp contrast to the Mary Shelley's descriptions of fields, lakes
and mountains of Switzerland. Even so, the mood is still intrinsically Gothic in Stevenson.
The inside and outside of London's households ultimately reflect the protagonist's own

10 In the very last sentence of the book, Jekyll declares the ending of his life, what could be read as his
acknowledgment that he could never again come back with no more powders. However, some lines earlier,
Jekyll refers to Hyde's fear of his "power to cut him off by suicide" (2006, p. 65), a reminder of Hyde's
esteem of life. As the body is found dead, it is presumed that Hyde would probably not be the one to cause it.
 59

anxiety and double inclinations, for they represent the different places in which Jekyll is
forced to hide or show his repressed side:

The fog still slept on the wing above the drowned city, where the lamps
glimmered like carbuncles; and through the muffle and smother of these
fallen clouds, the procession of the town’s life was still rolling in through
the great arteries with a sound as of a mighty wind. But the room was gay
with firelight. In the bottle the acids were long ago resolved; the imperial
dye had softened with time, as the colour grows richer in stained
windows; and the glow of hot autumn afternoons on hillside vineyards
was ready to be set free and to disperse the fogs of London.
(STEVENSON, 2006, p. 26)

The obscure elements present in the description of the streets of London, the
“drowned city”, the “fallen clouds”, corroborate the “grave countenance” Jekyll is bound
to assume in the public sphere of his relations. As for the choosing of London itself rather
than Edinburgh – Stevenson's hometown – one must remember that the capital city of
England indeed represented the “locus classicus of Victorian behavior (…), a microcosm
of the necessary fragmentation that Victorian man found inescapable” (SAPOSNIK, 1971,
p. 77-78). Opposite to the outside, this sphere of public contact, Jekyll's rooms breathed
warmth and life, not by coincidence described by the author through the colors of his
chemical acids, the scientific means which will ultimately bring to life the repressed energy
inside the doctor. The division of rooms also show the levels of intimacy, or consciousness,
which is progressively broken through the narrative. From the narrator's eyes, Hyde begins
by entering through a backdoor to Jekyll's house; as the story progresses he is a constant
guest allowed to walk freely in the house; ultimately, the double Jekyll/Hyde has his study
broken and invaded, a literal and metaphorical image for the final level of consciousness in
which the outside and the inside were visibly bound as one.

2.2.5 Science: Evolution or Regression?

The scientific ambition which enabled Shelley's and Stevenson's protagonists to

reach beyond natural possibilities, though a point in common between both books, has
 60

different implications here and there. In Frankenstein, Victor's ambition towards the
creation of the Monster may be read as a reflection of his desire towards Elizabeth, which
is repressed. Since he cannot have his “sister” as his wife, he wants to prove himself
capable of filling her place, thus giving birth to the Creature, who, by his turn, revolts
against his master's lack of care toward him, revealing Frankenstein's failure in the process
of “substutive formation”. Science is thus seen, simultaneously, in a pessimistic and an
optimistic sense: it can replace natural processes, such as the creation of life; but it is also
the means through which the monstrous repressed desires can emerge. In Jekyll and Hyde,
besides the double perspective of the central scientist facing his ambitions, their benefits
and drawbacks, there is also a still more noticeable double perspective concerning the
handling of science through the opinions of the two doctors in the story: Dr. Jekyll and Dr.
Lanyon. Here, however, science is regarded both in a conservative and a transcendental
manner. Both characters are medical men with an initial “bond of common interest” until
Lanyon refrains himself not to follow Jekyll's metaphysical speculations, “too fanciful for
his conceptions” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 12). In the end, Lanyon is forced to behold the
results of Jekyll's “transcendental medicine” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 50), witnessing his
friend's transformation into Mr. Hyde, a vision that will later take his life alongside his
scientific beliefs.

The discussion present in Frankenstein at the beginning of the century, thus, already
points to a crisis of identity concerning the possibilities of science. If Erasmus Darwin's
experiments with electricity – which would later influence the “galvanism” of Luigi
Galvani – were a base for Mary Shelley's scientific principles in her book (FLORESCU,
1998), Charles Darwin's (Erasmus' grandson) theory of evolution was fundamental for the
fear of primitiveness present in R. L. Stevenson's novella. The British naturalist first
developed his theory of evolution in a general manner in The Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection (1859), applying his principles to a great number of animal species
among themselves. After the controversy of its initial release, and the support of other
scientists, such as Thomas Huxley11, Darwin publishes The Descent of Man and Selection
in Relation to Sex (1871), bringing back his discussion in order to apply the principles of
natural selection specifically to the human species. The scientist analyzed especially the

11 A curious proof of the web of correlations of science and fiction in the 19 th century, which this work
intends to highlight: Thomas Huxley – a friend of Charles Darwin and evolutionist supporter – was also H G.
Wells' professor and main influence into the particular scientific pessimism in the fiction of the author, as it is
going analyzed in the next chapter.
 61

presence of rudiments in men, such as the amount of hair or bone structures. which proved
a linking with simian ancestors mostly, but also other species:

Thus [based on natural selection], we can understand how it has come to

pass that man and all the vertebrate animals have been constructed on the
same general model, why they pass through the same early stages of
development and why they retain certain rudiments in common.
Consequently, we ought frankly to admit their community of descent; to
take any other view, is to admit that our structure, and that of all the
animals around us, is a mere snare laid to entrap our judgment.
(DARWIN, 1971, p. 265).

This highlighting of our primitive ancestors acted as a reminder of people's lowest

impulses, which could still be present, albeit thousands of years of human evolution, into
the civilized modern man. This feeling of uneasiness and anxiety can be read between and
in the lines of Stevenson's novella, through Hyde's primitive and indescribable appearance,
his behavior marked by an “ape-like fury” (STEVENSON, 2006, p. 20) against all who
surround him.

In Jekyll and Hyde, therefore, the pair public/private is placed as an accessory of the
pair primitive/civilized, in such way that both extremes of duality reflect the relation
between the self and his primitive/repressed desires. This results in the feeling of anxiety
regarding the countenance one should have in the many spheres society and the fear that
man's primitive repressed traits may emerge at any moment. Not by coincidence, it is the
same science that brought the revelation of the nature of man's inner self to light 12 that
should enable a possible escape from this repressed entity. Although further in the novella,
Jekyll “began to profit by the strange immunities of [his] position” (STEVENSON, 2006,
p. 56) as Hyde, being contaminated by the close presence of his previously far self; he first
desired to eliminate his vicious side. However, both Frankenstein's and Jekyll's scientific
experiments turn their repressed desires ever more evident, through the figures of the
monsters which are so remembered from Gothic tradition.

The theme of scientific subversion is thus appropriated through new, although similar
perspectives. Science is again the means of monster creation, despite the creators not

12 Through Darwin's theory of evolution before the publication of Jekyll and Hyde, what acted as an
influence, but also through Freud's further Metapsychology, through which this analysis could be done in
retrospect.
 62

wanting this result; again the creature is a reflection, a “double” of his creator's repressed
feelings, which can be read as sexual repression due to society's social norms; again both
creator and creature are set into a destructive conflict which can only end in their deaths;
and finally, scientific evolution and ambition is again indirectly criticized. However, there
are a number of innovations present through Stevenson's revisiting of Gothic themes.
Science is perceived in a pessimistic sense not only due to its possibility to create monsters
but because of its intention of showing men's primitive ancestors and thus unsettling their
place in society. This dichotomy of the primitive/civilized is added to Jekyll's anxieties
regarding his attitudes in public and private spheres, all of which are represented through
Jekyll/Hyde metaphor throughout the novella. If the double was present in Shelley's novel,
it is much more evident in Stevenson's book, through many layers of interpretation, which
developed previous Gothic conventions.

The choosing of those works is justified inasmuch as they both reflect the anxieties
of the self facing the opportunity of scientific development. Both Frankenstein and Dr.
Jekyll are punished by their ambitions of overcoming human boundaries through the use of
science. In the same sense, their motivations for doing so follow a similar logic in which
their repressed desires lead up to their actions regarding the handling of science, but also
the opportunity of scientific transcendence itself serves as a disruption for those same
actions. The two classic monsters created in those books are thus a consequence of both
what is present and what is not.

The “mad scientist” theme will be revisited once again one decade later, in the very
end of the 19th century, still an heir to Darwinism and the scientific pessimism persistent in
previous fiction. H. G. Wells' fiction, however, presents more of an outline of a new genre,
with a focus on the scientific, although Gothic fears and themes are still present. The
Island of Dr. Moreau, the book that fits the most Frankenstein's and Jekyll and Hyde's
legacy, will be the final one to be considered in the next chapter.
 63

3 H. G. WELLS: THE “TURNING POINT” OF THE

SCIENCE FICTION GENRE

Herbert George Wells (1866-1946) is often referred, by critics and readers alike, as
the founder of what was later to be called the Science Fiction genre, although this label
would only come to be years after his first publications. The fact that he was the first man
of science (at least to have a solid background of scientific education) to write about it is
perhaps one of the main reason for his accomplishments, the other being his ever-present
passion for writing. Having studied three years at the Normal School of Science, in London
granted Wells with the basis for an interest that would pursue him for years. His first
"scientific romances", written in the last years of the 19 th century, dealt with science in this
descriptive manner, as well as adding a social commentary implicit in the narrative's
apparently adventurous plot. Precisely because of this moral and social preoccupation, as
well as his scientific knowledge that helped him create pseudo-scientific suppositions,
Wells is considered a turning-point of a genre that already existed, or the founder of a new
one. As observed, Shelley's novel, alongside other known Gothic narratives, such as
Stevenson's novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, deal with the scientific
matter as a way to expose Victorian anxieties about the fast evolution of science itself.
Therefore, it is impossible to neglect the origins of scientific supposition on those formerly
Gothic narratives, as well as the maintenance of Gothic traits in Wells' Science fiction.

This final chapter intends to approach Wells' work through both a general and a more
specified approach. The books of the so-called “first cycle” will be analyzed in terms of
determining how Sci-fi operates, in relation to the previous Gothic conventions and
Darwinism, the main motivation for the science in Stevenson and in all of Wells. Finally,
The Island of Dr. Moreau is going to be approached in order to understand how the mad-
scientist theme, from Shelley and Stevenson, is now present, and mostly why there is here
a more profound deviation from Gothic conventions, which can justify a turning-point of a
previous genre.
 64

3.1 WELLS' SCIENCE FICTION

3.1.1 The Story of a Brain

Coming from a poor family, the life of H. G. Wells, if not for his persistence, pointed
to a completely different direction than that which he ended up taking. In his Experiment
in Autobiography: Discoveries and Conclusions of a Very Ordinary Brain (Since 1866)
(1934), we discover the constant wish from young Wells of abandoning the drapers
business – the selling of cloth which his family was involved with – and employing
himself in a work where he could show his vision of the world. After several failed "starts
in life" – circumstances in which he purposefully ran away from occupations his parents
put him in –, Wells received the first input that would place him in his future path by
becoming a science student in London in 1884 in the Normal School of Science (nowadays
Imperial College London). There he studied, among other subjects, Zoology under famous
professor Thomas Huxley13, a circumstance which would have some importance in his
future writing of Science fiction and the extrapolation of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Perhaps as an inheritance of his studies, Wells constantly refers to himself as "a brain" in
his autobiography, whose main story was, in his opinion, "(...) the development, the steady
progressive growth of a modern vision of the world, and the way in which the planned
reconstruction of human relationships in the form of a world-state" (WELLS, 1934, p.
425).

Despite working as an assistant teacher for some time after his studies, Wells
concluded that he did not have "either the character or the capacity for a proper scientific
career" but that he was "a remarkable wit and potential writer" (WELLS, 1934, p. 238).
Working as a journalist and editor in the following years, the author simultaneously
worked on drafts of what would be his grand debut as an imaginative writer: The Time
Machine (1895). Here he created an impossible scenario which, nonetheless, seemed
realistic enough to sustain the reader's interest, due to the depth of the scientific knowledge
employed. Therefore, time-traveling seems almost possible when there is a long
convincing digression concerning the properties of the dimensions of space and time. The

13 Known public supporter of Darwinism, Thomas Huxley is the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, the famous
author of the Science fiction dystopia Brave New World (1932).
 65

idea for this first novel came when he was a science student, and the consideration of a
fourth spatial dimension as rising among professors. This led Wells to write a scientific
paper on the matter, "The Universe Rigid", which served as a background for the first part
of the novel, in which the explanations are postulated – roughly that space and time share
properties, and, therefore, time may be considered as having more than one direction, as
space has. The article was, in Wells' opinion, "an ill-written description of a four-
dimensional space-time universe", the "sort of thing [that] was far away from the monthly
reviews" (WELLS, 1934, 294) but, despite that, served perfectly for the realm of fiction,
when this scientific involvement was not common.

Upon the immediate success of The Time Machine, and the advise of editors for him
to continue with the same technique, H. G. Wells wrote his "scientific romances" in the
following years: The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), The War of
the Worlds (1898), First Men in the Moon (1901), among several short stories. Those
stories are commonly referred to as the "first cycle" of Wells' Sci-fi, by authors such as
Darko Suvin (1979), due to their common patterns. In fact, Wells Sci-fi began
undifferentiated from the whole – because there was no defined genre – but was later
turned into a "sub-genre" called14 Hard Sci-fi, "a work of sf (...) [in which the] relationship
to and knowledge of science and technology is central to the work" (JAMES;
MENDLESOHN, 2003, p. 187). After the turn of the century, however, already established
as a well-known writer, Wells allowed himself some creative freedom and stopped the
technique employed in his first scientific novels. Now his fiction tended more to realistic
and autobiographical novels, as well as scientific anticipations of things to come.

Even though H. G. Wells was still mostly known as a Science fiction writer, the first
to clearly have the knowledge to write deeply about it even before the genre existed, he
was also employed himself in many fields of fiction and non-fiction. Montgomery Belgion,
in a short biographical account, first refers to him as a double "author of both the fantasies
and the seemingly realistic novels", and, through a further glance, a multiple writer, who
"turned himself a one-man encyclopædist" later in his life (BELGION, 1955, p. 9; 11).
However, according to Belgion, it is impossible to ignore a sort of "dead enthusiasm" for
the writer later in his career, if we are driven to compare his late fictional work with the
first cycle. This fact was observable by Wells himself, who, at some point in his

14 " Only in the late 1950s was there a felt need to name it", due to the evolution of the genre into several
new branches. (JAMES; MENDLESOHN, 2003, p. 187).
 66

autobiography, recognizes that lately, for some, he was merely known as the author of The
Invisible Man – possibly an influence of the recent 1933 movie. 15 This evident loss of
prestige can be seen as a natural consequence of the "evolution of his brain", as he himself
put it. His wish to expose his ideas and live from writing predates his scientific education,
whose employment led him to be recognized as a known writer in the first place. The
famous Sci-fi writer Wells came to be seen, thus, as a first step into the writing career he
always aimed for, but which did not necessarily involve the use of his scientific
knowledge, which was, at that time, primarily a escape from the drapers business his
family wanted to impose him. In this sense, it is only natural that at some point he would
want to deviate from that first framework of fiction, once he achieved some security and
reputation, to seek for creative freedom. Concerning this, the author comments about his
distinction between novels and scientific romances, which can be interpreted respectively
as inward and outward styles of writing:

I set out to write novels, as distinguished from those pseudo-scientific

stories in which imaginative experience rather than personal conduct was
the matter in hand, on the assumption that problems of adjustment were
the essential matter for novel writing. (WELLS, 1934, p. 410)

Having written, therefore, a sort of fiction which relies heavily on scientific fact and
imagination, the author must have developed the wish to write about the personal
relationships which are so akin to the novel. It was needed to focus on one type of subject
in each of the books, considering the way he developed his writing, unless one would
deviate the attention from the other.

A comparison between early Wells and late Wells is, therefore, inevitable, but
ultimately not fruitful. If the late stories do not sustain the same exhilarating wonder of his
first fiction, they at least represent another phase of self-recognition, which can rather be
seen through a wider scope of fictional experimentation. And if the author is ever to be
considered one of the first exponents of Sci-fi as a formed genre, as it would shortly be,
this is no small accomplishment for the man who also searched for numerous means to
express his ideas of the world that was and would come to be.

15 Experiment in Autobiography was published one year after, in 1934.

 67

3.1.2 First Sci-Fi Cycle: 1895 – 1901

The most recognizable period of Wells' career is also its outset. Since the publication
of The Time Machine in 1895, the next books16 would follow a similar method in the
treatment of science, enriched it with actual scientific theories and jargon. This, alongside
an adventurous plot and highly imaginative extrapolations, would render the classic fiction
by which the author is instantly recognized up until today.

According to Darko Suvin, the whole first cycle “is a reversal of the popular concept
by which the lower social and biological classes were considered as “natural” prey in the
struggle for survival” (SUVIN, 1979, p. 25). This is strictly related to Wells vision on
Darwinism. He, as already mentioned, had classes with the famous Darwinist defensor
Thomas Huxley, and believed himself on those principles. However, his books often work
out ways to portray disastrous consequences of this very theory, subverting evolution to
involution. As Peter Straub points out (STRAUB apud WELLS, 2002), this attitude is due
to a preoccupation with modern scientific development, a fear of what results may come
from an overly ambitious approach to science. The persistent pessimism of his work, thus,
the Science fiction which is actually a sort of Anti-science fiction, served as an alert to
what was a natural consequence of the fears already visible in previous Gothic works.
More than that, the problem was not so much that monsters may become real, but that the
appliance of Darwinism and the notion of natural selection into social contexts could
indicate patterns of “evolution”. This Social Darwinism which generated Eugenics 17,
sought the definition of desired traits in humans in the same way that they were selected by
nature, a principle which, put that way, was contradictory to what Darwin had defined in
the first place:

Man can act only on external and visible characters: Nature, if I may be
allowed to personify the natural preservation of survival of the fittest,
cares, nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any
being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of
constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects
only for his own good. (DARWIN, 1971, p. 41)
16 The first cycle of what Wells himself called “scientific romances”: The Time Machine (1895), The Island
of Doctor Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), The War of the Worlds (1898), and The First Men in the
Moon (1901), as well as various short stories produced in this period. By the turn of the century, his
production changed focus to autobiographical novels and scientific works with less scientific background and
more predictive elements.
17 A " movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race", the term was first
coined in 1883, meaning "well-born". (RIVARD, 2015)
 68

Having studied the principles which were in discussion in scientific circles, Wells
was the perfect authority to define his view to the general public, although, unfortunately,
the Social Darwinism he opposed evolved to the deplorable consequences of the 20 th
century. With his stories, which are only masked as essential entertainment, as it is viewed
by some18, on a primary level, but which reveal much more on a deeper analysis regarding
the transposition of theory to fiction, Wells developed a sort of didactic fiction, in which
what mattered was "not knowledge, but a critical and inquiring mental habit” (WELLS;
PHILMUS & HUGHES, 1975, p. 2-3). A central chapter called “The Scientist Explains” is
usually common in his books, in which the science that made the experiment possible is
discussed almost as if in a scientific article. Therefore, as common themes, we can find
either the classic conflict of the creation which turns against its creator in Moreau, the
animals that refuse, by their biology, to follow the experiments of their “master”; or other
cases where the apparently “weaker” beings end up surviving against all odds – an
indication that appearances do not reflect one's inner biological composition.

Another important aspect of H. G. Wells' fiction is the technique of employment of

science, which makes his stories believable and even “probable”, despite the absurd
situations. This method consists, in Wells's words, in “[tricking] the reader into an unwary
concession to some plausible assumption and get on with his story while the illusion holds”
(WELLS, 2003, pp. xii-xiii); this “plausible assumption” is the scientific explanation of the
plot – the fourth dimension in The Time Machine, or the digression concerning the
properties of vivisection in The Island of Dr. Moreau –, which needs to seem realistic
enough for a certain time so that the “fantastical” elements of the story seem plausible
within the setting of the narrative. The success of those stories showcases a need for
“realism” in the realm of the fantastic. The scientific extrapolations now felt ever more real
and terrifying with these plausible assumptions, different from the Gothic of Shelley and
Stevenson, where the reader simply accepted that such things as the creation or alteration
of a being would be possible. Wells himself believed that he had merely transposed

18 Wells is frequently referred to as an entertainer, in a criticism disguised as a compliment. British author T.

S. Eliot, for example, analyzes the first cycle as a necessary step for "the ambitious youth of literary gifts and
humble origins", making a living by "giving the public its entertainment", so "when one got sufficiently
established, then one might be free, either to devote oneself to a work of literary art, or to preach openly to a
public which is docile and respectful to success." (ELIOT, 1972, p. 320) This common lack of appreciation in
regard to Wells' early work evidently does not recognize the mechanisms through which his fiction operates,
which this thesis showcases.
 69

elements of previous genres, such as Gothic, possibly, into what he called scientific
romances. "It occurred to me," Wells writes, "that instead of the usual interview with the
devil or a magician, an ingenious use of scientific patter might with advantage be
substituted ... I simply brought the fetish stuff up to date, and made it as near actual theory
as possible." (WELLS apud BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 31-32)

Therefore, in Wells, there is more specificity about scientific principles and uses, so
to approximate it to the public. On the other hand, the fiction loses its former romantic
traits related to the Gothic genre. A counter criticism is that, while occupied with the plot
and the consequences of the new possibilities made true, Wells lacks focus on his central
characters. They can be defined as types, most commonly the scientist and the witness. The
latter is a layman on the subject and needs to understand what is happening in the story, in
the same way as the reader does, being instantly identifiable with, not for his inner
qualities, but for his bewilderment in face of what is happening. This analysis will be more
closely done in the case of Moreau, in the next section. As for now, we are left to analyze
some general points which are present through Wells' early Science fiction, especially how
evolution – or devolution – is portrayed.

The Time Machine, the first fictional product of the writer's sense of observation to
both natural and social world, is a novella in which the main character, simply called The
Time Traveler, goes to a far future just to find that humanity had evolved (or devolved) into
two distinct species, the Eloi and the Morlocks, the first the prey of the second. This
dystopia reflects the author's view about social classes, at the same time that sets a
pessimistic setting on evolution which would be common in the author's work. One of the
main features of this first book is the accuracy in the description of the scientific element––
in this case the consideration of time as a fourth “spacial” dimension––in a way that was
not commonly observed before in a work of fiction which contained scientific matter. In a
preface of 1931, Wells called it "a very unequal book", "a slender story [which] springs
from a very profound root" (WELLS, 2005, p. 94). This is due to the merging of elements
from adventure stories with an early solid scientific theory to justify time-traveling, the
consideration of time as the fourth dimension of space, which, therefore, should follow the
same properties of the latter, such as free movement in the future and past "directions".
This is concluded based on the assumption that, if one can defy the force of gravity going
up on a ballon. then it can also be supposed that another sort of mechanism could defy the
 70

natural present-future direction of time: a time-machine. About the scientific background,

Wells comments:

That one idea is now everybody's idea. It was never the writer's own
peculiar idea. Other people were coming to it. It was begotten in the
writer's mind by student's discussions in the laboratories and debating
society of the Royal College of Science of the eighties (...). (WELLS,
2005, p. 94)

The early theory – which would have something to do with Einstein's theories of
relativity at the beginning of the century19 – was the channel through which Wells could
access the far future and portray, with a pessimistic vision, the destiny of humanity, should
that follow the principles of natural selection to its very roots. The making of the machine
is never closely discussed: the end of the exposition is the point from which the attention of
the reader holds, and the adventurous plot may ensue, without giving space for
questioning. In the story, both species which derived from humanity devolved in some
way: the Eloi, though beautiful beings, were deprived of intelligence and emotions, while
the Morlocks degenerated into underground predators, similar to animals. The fear of
involution present in Gothic narratives, such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, is thus clearly
visible here, as well as the element of horror and tension. The story can also be read as an
allegory of the conflict between proletariat versus bourgeois society, in which the
Morlocks, the underground and thus lower class, rise against their oppressors making them
their slaves. Again, considering Suvin's consideration, the apparently weaker species tends
to overcome their condition in the struggle for survival.

In the following year, The Island of Dr. Moreau is published. One year after, in 1897,
Wells publishes The Invisible Man. Perhaps the less celebrated work of Wells' first cycle
Sci-fi, due to its low range of critique, the book is nonetheless an interesting approach on –
and a consolidation of – the theme of the “mad-scientist”, born in Frankenstein. Portraying
Griffin, a man supposedly ahead of its time, but deprived of human intentions, the book
deals with the disastrous outcomes of an overly ambitious scientific experiment. Science
here is only a key to egoistic control, and the madness present in the central character's

19 Albert Einstein's consideration on "special relativity" deemed that "space and time were interwoven into a
single continuum known as space-time", in a way that events may happen at different times for distinct
observers (REDD, 2017). The consideration of space and time as dependable entities could be traced back to
the discussions at the end of the 19th century, which Wells was familiar with.
 71

attitudes can yet point to another Gothic trait, present in its subtitle: “A Grotesque
Romance”. In the same fashion of Dr. Jekyll, Griffin, a young scientist, decides to apply
his discoveries, the formula for invisibility, upon himself, taking advantage in a series of
situations in order to create an empire of his own. However, his lack of planning turns his
aspirations unsuccessful – the book mostly deals with his persecution by the people of a
village he travels to, in order to conclude his experiments. The outcomes of this fantastic
situation are not as broad as in other books by the author, precisely because the main
character cannot make them so. Invisibility would represent a revolution in scientific
understanding, but instead, the action is reduced to a terrorizing pursuit in a small scenario
– in the same way that Griffin's intelligence is reduced to selfish and petty intentions.
Again here, the pessimistic Gothic/Sci-fi in the tradition of Shelley and Stevenson deems
the overly ambitious mind incapable of succeeding due to its merciless intentions, and
what is left are only monsters fabricated, in this case, the own creator/creature. But perhaps
what is most striking concerning this romance, in relation to all others in the first cycle, is
the detail employed in the extense scientific descriptions conveyed by the protagonist:

Just think of all the things that are transparent and seem not to be so.
Paper, for instance, is made up of transparent fibres, and it is white and
opaque only for the same reason that a powder of glass is white and
opaque. (...) And not only paper, but cotton fibres, linen fibres, woold
fibres, woody fibres, and bone, Kemp, flesh, Kemp, hair, Kemp, nails and
nerves, Kemp, in fact the whole fabric of a man except the red of his
blood and the black pigment of hair, are all made up of transparent,
colourless tissue. (WELLS, 2012a, p. 92)

The author could have stopped there with enough background for the formula, but
the problem of hair and blood is yet discoursed ahead, and how it could be solved using
such and such properties. The attention to detail goes as far as showing the consequences
that such a process of making oneself invisible would implicate – smoke and food which
are made visible while in contact with the body, blood which, out of the body, turns visible
after coagulating, etc. Whether this information corresponds to reality, it is not necessary
for the purposes of fiction. The key innovation of Wells' romances is the convincement
carried out by the story, which usually dedicates an entirely separate chapter of the plot for
the explanation. In comparison to Shelley's "instruments of life" (SHELLEY, 2005, p. 84-
85) and Stevenson's "salts and drugs", the only slightly scientific descriptions provided in
 72

the respective novels, Wells' fiction ends up showing that all of that, or something yet more
terrible, could be real, because there are properties that could allow it, perhaps not now, or
then, but in a future occasion.

That being considered, Gothic fears are renewed to the age of fast scientific
development: now they are more present in the readers' reality because they can dialogue
with what is being discussed in the world. The focus on the scientific aspects here is an
important trait which differentiates his fiction from the previous, more romantic attempts
of Shelley and Stevenson. It is important to state, however, that none of those authors were
conscious of the Science fiction genre which would emerge much ahead. That is why this
analysis seeks only to establish how patterns made themselves present through the 19 th
century, until they would reach, in Wells, a turning-point with the outlines of what
determined more clearly the genre which would emerge in the following years.

Wells' next romance, The War of the Worlds, is perhaps the best known book from his
entire collection of scientific romances. The precursor of the alien-invasion tradition, this
work has less evident foundations on the scientific descriptions than its predecessors. The
protagonist is a witness to the alien invasion, and all the science involved in the physiology
of the aliens is, inside the purposes of the narrative, unknown to humans. However, a
strong trait of the evolution theory following Darwinism is perceptible upon a close
reading, regarding, mostly, the appearance of the Martian invaders. Despite being a
superior race – due to their power and machinery –, their appearance resembles a primitive
and limited form similar to an octopus:

Two large dark-coloured eyes were regarding me steadfastly. The mass

that framed them, the head of the thing, was rounded, and had, one might
say, a face. There was a mouth under the eyes, the lipless brim of which
quivered and panted, and dropped saliva. The whole creature heaved and
pulsated convulsively. A lank tentacular appendage gripped the edge of
the cylinder, another swayed in the air. (WELLS, 2012b, p. 18)

Remembering Darwinism, natural selection is "the preservation of favourable

individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious (...)"
(DARWIN, 1971, p. 40). Following this theory to the very limit, the only members of the
body which would survive in an overly superior being which would go the farthest state of
adaptation and variation would be a) the head, where the brain is located, and b) the arms,
 73

the instruments which can put into action the will of the brain. The result is thus
purposefully an ugly and primitive creature, which puts into perspective, once again, the
question of primitiveness and evolution. This can be interpreted as a warning related to
what the mindless pursue for evolution and "perfection" followed by some branches of
science, such as Eugenics, might result in. In the end, the death of the aliens results from
their own lack of adaptability to the conditions of planet Earth, and not by any action of
men in the war which took place – which brings us back to the scientific background which
surrounds and justifies the plot of Wells' narratives.

The First Men in the Moon is published in 1901 and, unlike the other stories, it does
not present a completely new theme, but the usual journey-to-the-moon type of plot 20. In
the story, the scientist Cavor creates a substance “opaque to gravitation” (WELLS, 2003, p.
15), what, therefore, enables him to build a spaceship which can be repelled from the
Earth's and attracted to the Moon's field of gravity. The usual scientific jargon is present
here to justify the possibility of this travel, although other further elements on the story
take that credibility away from the reader of today, such as the possibility to breathe in the
Moon. The theme of evolution as something not so outwardly evident is present once again
here, when one observes the inhabitants of the Moon. The Selenites are insect-like
creatures, who, despite not having a spoken language and being very fragile in their body
structure, are a far more advanced civilization than humans in matters of intelligence and
morality. The main critique of the novel appears in regard to how human history would be
viewed by a foreign advanced race: when Cavor naively tells the Selenites about human
wars, the aliens are struck with amazement and instantly cut any relationship they could
have with Earth's people in the future. The longest from all of the stories from the first
cycle, The First Men in the Moon would also mark its end, whether this deviation was
planned by the author or not.
During the period analyzed, Wells also published numerous short-stories involving
the same, or a similar, technique, employed in the romances. In the most recent collection
by The Modern Library, edited by Ursula K. Le Guin, Wells' stories are divided in a
number of subgenres which demonstrate the range of the author's vision: Visionary Science
Fiction; Technological and Predictive Science Fiction; Horror Stories; Fantasies; Fables;
and Psycho-Social Science Fiction. The first category would perhaps fit better the scientific
20 The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction (JAMES; MENDLESOHN, 2003) in a chronology of
important books of the genre, lists at least Johannes Kepler's A Dream (1634), Francis Godwin's The Man in
the Moone (1638) and Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon (1865) as other books following the theme.
 74

background akin to the longer scientific romances; it is here that “The New Accelerator” is
placed – the story chosen by Gernsback to be published in the first edition of the magazine
The Amazing Stories in 1926, the one that, by looking at the fiction of the past, influenced
a whole generation of Science fiction, now a genre with a name.

3.2 GOTHIC AND SCIENCE FICTION IN THE ISLAND OF DR.

MOREAU

3.2.1 Science Fiction: “Monsters Fabricated”

Resembling a classic “island-adventure” on the outside, in the tradition of Treasure
Island, Moreau is a far more dense and psychological tale, visible akin to the father of the
monster-creating trend, Frankenstein. The story has its first-person narrator, Edward
Pendrick, with no other choice except going to the mysterious island, since the ship he was
in had drowned. There, he faces an ambitious doctor, who was cast away from England due
to his outrageous scientific methods. Although the book first intends for the reader to think
that Moreau is making hybrids of humans and animals – the screams Pendrick hears seem
too human –, this instead serves to intensify the changes the doctor is making on those
same animals, applying vivisection and hypnotism to them with the intention of making
them similar to humans in behavior and mind. The attitude of “playing God” is here ever
more visible, since the animals create a “Law” – a remnant from the hypnotism applied to
them – by which they would have to obey their master and treat him as the uttermost being,
through a sort of prayer:

Not to go on all Fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? (...)
Not to eat Flesh or Fish; that is the Law. Are we not Men? (...)
Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men? (…)
His is the House of pain.
His is the Hand that makes.
His is the Hand that wounds.
His is the Hand that heals. (WELLS, 2002, p. 79-80)

His attempts of creating ideal beings, however, following natural selection and other
 75

principles and eliminating specific traits of the specimens, end in catastrophe, as they
ultimately attack their own creator and come back to their primitive form. The
“Introduction” of the story hints at a more rational interpretation in which all was a
delusion, and everything that happened after the sinking of the ship had happened only on
Pendrick's mind, for the island was empty, although it remains a mystery how he would
have survived in the sea for eleven months.

The book, thus, deals with questions of primitiveness and humanity, leaving its
protagonist with doubtful impressions about whether both traces can be present
alternatively. The island is also portrayed as a fraction, a smaller version of the scientific
world and its practices. All three main characters of the story, Moreau, Mongomery (his
assistant) and Pendrick, studied science at some level – Pendrick even claims to have
studied in the Royal College of Science, under Professor Thomas Huxley, a reference to
Wells' own life experience. The three of them regard the matter with different degrees of
attachment: Moreau will do anything to achieve his goals, ignoring any sense of what is
moral or not, and considering his experiments mere “monsters manufactured” (WELLS,
2002, p. 97); Montgomery, despite being an accomplice to everything that is done, has
some attachment to the Beast-folk, as they are called, and liked to be near them; Pendrick,
the witness of the entire process, serves as the eyes of the reader, who inevitably tend to be
of horror and disaproval, while also identifing human traits in the animals and relating to
them. The first creature to befriend the narrator, for example, was the Ape Man – a
symbolical indication of the common origins of both, “five-finger men”.

The classic structure of Wells' first cycle is present here. As Moreau's experiment is
complex and wide-ranging, encompassing a number of different animals, the book presents
their characteristics and behavior throughout, relating each species to a certain response
which should occur; the puma, for example, is the most aggressive of the animals, an
indication of his behavior in nature. Moreover, a chapter (didactically named “Dr. Moreau
Explains) is dedicated to the explanation of the scientific process through which all of that
could be possible, which is done halfway through the story, when all other hints were
indirectly given and could, therefore, be put in contrast with “reality”:

(…) the possibilities of vivisection do not stop at a mere physical

metamorphosis. A pig may be educated. The mental structure is even less
determinate than the bodily. In our growing science of hypnotism, we
 76

find the promise of a possibility of replacing old inherited instincts by

new suggestions, grafting upon or replacing the inherited fixed ideas.
Very much indeed of what we call moral education is such an artificial
modification and perversion of instinct; pugnacity is trained into
courageous self-sacrifice and suppressed sexuality into religious emotion.
(WELLS, 2002, p. 99)

Instead of the heavy scientific jargon of other books, here Wells uses only the
sufficient amount of scientific background for the extrapolation to be possible while
focusing on the moral aspects involved in the experiment. Moreau's attitude is then based
on the allegation that whatever he was doing on the island, has already been done
throughout history, the indirect modification of humans by cultural practices which shape
their ideas and original instincts. This notion of variation is given by Darwin at the
beginning of The Origin of Species, when the author discusses domestic variation, which
happens when men create or cultivate animals or plants “under condition of life not so
uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent species had been
exposed under nature” (DARWIN, 1971, p. 9). Wells was aware of that notion and
defended the idea that social and moral modification was important for the education of
men, which worked in contradiction with the tendency of the “culminating ape”, i. e.,
returning to its primitive origins; “the artificial man” was, therefore, a “highly plastic
creature of tradition, suggestion, and reasoned thought”. (WELLS; PHILMUS &
HUGHES, 1975, p. 12)

The ambiguity with which the notion is treated, either in a positive or negative sense,
reflects the many views men of science might have upon the same subject, as the ones in
the book do and Wells himself does. In relation to his other books previously discussed,
here the criticism against the misuse of science, as well as the consequences which could
ensue, is once more present. According to Pendrick, in the novel, the island resembled the
outside world, “the whole balance of human life in miniature, the whole interplay of
instinct, reason and fate in its simplest form” (WELLS, 2002, p. 133). The consequences
are indeed fantastical, but even more than that terrifying and inhumane, perhaps the most
shocking extrapolation made in Wells' scientific romances.

Ultimately Moreau does not feel the pain he causes because he considers it only part
of evolution, an artificial one always present in history. This disregarding of the human
factor is not done by Wells, who considers the “plasticity” of men – the idea "that a living
 77

thing might be ... so moulded and modified that at best it would retain scarcely anything of
its inherent form and disposition” (WELLS, PHILMUS & HUGHES, 1975, p. 16-17) – a
characteristic to be worked upon for the betterment of mankind, instead of in Moreau's
anti-ethical way:

Darwinism for Wells had always been a way of thinking rather than
primarily a body of facts, and now he was able, with a sense of active
implementation, to use the evolutionary model in areas other than
biology. Freed from the "grotesque" theology of Moreau, the study of the
man-making operation might become a hopeful affair and one that made
a difference in one's actions—not just in one's beliefs—because man-
making (Wells now felt) was a human enterprise rather than a natural
process. (...) For civilization is not "material": it is "a fabric of ideas and
habits" which "grows . . . through the agency of eccentric and innovating
people". (...) in Education lies the possible salvation of mankind from
misery and sin" and their equivalents in the evolutionary process,
"suffering and 'elimination.'" (WELLS; PHILMUS & HUGHES, 1975,
185-86).

The conclusion of the story is pessimistic while also optimistic. The experiments end
up failing, as the Beast-folk keep coming back to their original primitive form, but this
failure is a reassurance that such amoral artificial intervention could not succeed. The
whole island is always full of monsters since Moreau turns them out when he begins "to
feel the beast in them" (WELLS, 2002, p. 107), thus none of them manages to go through a
complete process of humanization. As soon as the beasts taste blood, ignoring the fixed
idea against it, implanted by Moreau's hypnotism, they recover their instincts and begin
returning to their natural form, without speech and the sense of human hierarchy dictated
by the "Law". With the deaths of Montgomery and Moreau amidst the catastrophe, it is left
for Pendrick, unable to leave the island, to live among the creatures until he could make a
raft and finally escape to open sea.

Upon returning back to civilization, the protagonist fears the same reversion to
primitiveness in people, an indication that he could never completely trust men again. One
final conclusion we may get from the book, however, is not that primitiveness always
prevails, in the case of the Beast-folk, or in Moreau's attitude, primitive in a moral rather
than in a biological sense; but that such interpretations and processes are possible and may
happen – for he himself believed in the theory –, maybe without the same dreadful results,
but with similar ones in what reaches the ethical boundaries of doing science. The
 78

plasticity of men can be done through other means such as education, but it becomes
problematic when natural selection is considered and transformed into artificial selection.
The ending thus points to a cycled process through which the anti-ethical intents of men
end up resulting in their own degradation, how the flight from the primitive shows, even
more, the primitiveness in their intention.

Now we are left to observe how H. G. Wells, especially through The Island of Dr.
Moreau, dialogues with conventions from the Gothic tradition, as well as how those
conventions follow a progression, in Mary Shelley and R. L. Stevenson, until they
culminate in his fiction.

3.2.2 Gothic Roots: The Culmination of the “Mad-Scientist”

The most obvious resemblance among Wells', Shelley's and Stevenson's novels is the
central plot involving a scientist whose overly ambitious and immoral experiment ends up
attacking its own creator. This common trope, born in Shelley – when science was not even
used in the same sense as later on –, involves the creation of a new being almost from
ground zero, with a consciousness of its own and a wish to be cared for. The negligence of
Victor Frankenstein makes him partly guilty of the atrocities the Creature performs hence,
although this is a divisive question. Frankenstein is thus a very personal tale, in which the
psychology of the characters – as it was employed in the last chapter –, especially Victor
and the Creature, tells much about the possible conflicts they may face. The same pattern
follows on Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, when this time a scientist who decides
to perform an experiment in himself in order to end the conflict of his bipolar nature,
bounded to assume different dispositions in the public and private spheres. The double, the
tendency of dividing oneself into two attitudes, be it Victor as a reflection of the Creature,
or Jekyll and Hyde as even closer counterparts, is reduced, in both books, to the dichotomy
primitive/civilized: the experiments tend to follow a primitive behaviour, while the
scientists try to maintain the order and repair the wrongs they themselves made.

When we observe The Island of Dr. Moreau, this relation with science itself evolves
and is ever more present. One of the consequences is the obvious advancements of science,
especially through Darwinism, what is already visible in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, although
never named as a direct influence, in the primitive, ape-like behavior of Hyde, representing
 79

the fear of atavism. As a student in the area, Wells makes use of his knowledge to deliver a
story with a similar tone, only with more specifications regarding the processes that could
make, in a fictional realm, the creations possible. Likewise, the experimentations with live
beings cannot stop the force of nature, and primitive forces, here the natural regression of
the Beast-folk, inevitably prevail, as did Shelley's creature or Stevenson's Mr. Hyde. We
can see, therefore, a clear natural evolution of a theme which was eminently Gothic at the
beginning of the century. The sense of horror is kept as well, perhaps even more
convincingly due to the more complex scientific extrapolations which makes everything
closer. Science or Natural Philosophy, the branch of study always gave some credibility
when mentioned in fiction, but now in Wells, it is not as supernatural as it seemed in the
Gothic tradition of the previous books. As Renee Phillips observes, one of the few
researchers who made a comparison between the genres and among these books, as this
thesis also intends, "His scientific process of experimentation of these animals makes the
novel science fiction, but there is also an atmosphere of fear on the island that interacts
with the science to make this story a work of Gothic science fiction" (PHILLIPS, 2005, p.
25).

Concerning this presence of science as a creator of horror throughout the books,

there is also another common Gothic convention: the conflict between the ancient, related
to nature, and the new, the development of science. In Frankenstein, the early possibility of
inducing an electrical current in a dead body was already a motive for Shelley's
imaginative creation. From Erasmus Darwin to Charles Darwin, the primitiveness of men
becomes more noticeable when detailed by science, and thus highly influence the works of
Stevenson and Wells. In all novels the work of nature is spotted: in the former the capacity
of giving birth is neglected, a product of science that had much to do with Frankenstein's
psychology, as it was analyzed; in the latter the natural development of Jekyll's
consciousness is changed, creating an unlevelled balance between Ego and Id that should
not take place, following Freud; and finally in the Wells', natural selection gives way to
artificial selection in an attempt of changing nature's original development of those animals
tested by Moreau. In all three books, scientists become ambitious and try to change the old
order of things, the natural order which could be related to religion, hence the expression
"playing God", so common when one discusses these books. The criticism, however, does
not seem to be set on the advancement of science, but how this evolution is faced by those
who have the power to use:
 80

These works of Gothic science fiction do more than just express a

cultural fear of science and technology. Science and technology are not
feared in themselves, but in the hands of people who misuse them,
making these stories less a critique of science but a critique of human
nature. (PHILLIPS, 2005, p. 28)

This overall pessimism, which mirrors the fear of how science could be mishandled
by men, departs from Shelley, when Natural Philosophy was already a common theme, in
spite of not being very known by the author to be specified; reaches Stevenson in a
moment when Victorian sensibilities were already affected by the fear of regression, the
"culminating ape" mentioned by Wells; and finally finds in Wells a turning-point in which
the genre still maintains many Gothic conventions, but now is much more about science
and the extrapolations for social commentary that it makes possible, rather than the inner
conflicts of the characters portrayed.

Therefore, a fruitful comparison concerning those different phases of Sci-fi/Gothic

fiction is the scope of the action involved and the importance that is given throughout the
narrative. In Wells, at the end of the 19 th century, the discussions concerning human
evolution are considerably more present than in years past, influencing the outcome of
what is discussed in his fiction:

If the conceptual bridging of distances in space was a concomitant of

Darwin's theory, the telescoping of time was a necessity. Evolution
enlarged human consciousness of time: most obviously, because for the
theory to be true this planet must be older than anyone before Darwin had
supposed it to be (...). For the young Wells, with the lectures of Thomas
Huxley fresh in his mind, this extension of the temporal perspectives of
evolutionary theory seemed not merely possible; it seemed logical.
(WELLS; PHILMUS & HUGHES, 1975, p. 4)

The consequences of what is presented, the artificial selection performed by Moreau,

if successful, may alter the whole understanding of human evolution. The creation of an
artificial being in Shelley could have the same impression, however, there the conflict
resides much more in the psychology of Victor and the Monster and whether they could
ever make amends regarding their relationship. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the whole
conflict of the story is also fundamentally based on the duality of its main character, which
 81

is discovered in the last epistolary chapter. Instead, this extremely outward outcome carries
on in Wells' whole narrative, which does not have space to properly deal with the inward
conflict of the characters in the same extent that Shelley and Stevenson do. The theme of
the mad-scientist, the creator of an ideal and evolved being, reaches in Wells a similar
impact than in Shelley and Stevenson, but here the focus is given to the consequences of
the actions, rather than to the individuality of the characters. An important Gothic trait is,
therefore, less present in Wells, as the focus on science and plot become more important in
his fiction. Resuming Patrick Brantlinger, in the presenting of the genres done in the first
chapter, “(...) the nightmare of reason has expanded and turned outward in the evolution
from Gothic to science fiction. Again, the scale of disaster is individual and inward in the
earlier form, but social and often cosmic in the later one” (BRANTLINGER, 1980, p. 40).

As the central character, in Wells, is primarily a witness to the action presented – as

Pendrick is in Moreau –, he only occasionally has some space to reflect his feelings.
Similarly, with this loss of empathy towards the scientist and the focus on the protagonist
mainly as a witness, there is no space for the romanticism present in early Gothic, notably
in Mary Shelley. Pendrick has no one to care for other than his own survival on the island,
which is a dreary and claustrophobic landscape that does not allow for divagations to
counterbalance the horror present there.When his feelings appear, they tend to represent the
social implications of what such scientific extrapolation may ensue, rather than the impact
for himself, although it seems an individual apprehension for the character himself, as
when Pendrick returns to civilization and reflects upon his experience:

They say that terror is a disease, and anyhow, I can witness that, for
several years now, a restless fear has dwelt in my mind, such a restless
fear as a half-tamed lion cub may feel. My trouble took the strangest
form. I could not persuade myself that the men and women I met were
not also another, still passably human, Beast People, animals half-
wrought into the outward image of human souls, and that they would
presently begin to revert, to show first this bestial mark and then that.
(WELLS, 2002, p. 182)

Pendrick's adventure on the island was certainly traumatic, but most importantly he
was not the who caused all the horror that took place there. He seems important due to the
fact that, having some knowledge of science, he is more authoritative to question Moreau's
actions; but other than that, one may have the feeling that he could be any other person
 82

whose doubts and ultimate shock would justify the suspense of the narrative: “They
seemed to me to be brown men, but their limbs were oddly swathed (...)”; “They had lank
black hair, almost as horse hair, and seemed as they sat to exceed in stature any race of
men I have seen” (WELLS, 2002, p. 33).

Unlike Jekyll and Frankenstein, Pendrick's name is not on the cover of the book; he
is not the ambitious scientist with dreams of grandeur. And the title character, Moreau, is
not the narrator of the book. This position of the mind of the scientist, in Wells' scientific
romances, is now more detached from the reader, who does not have much access to it. A
similar technique of suspense is done in Stevenson, who has its main narrator, Mr.
Utterson, positioned as an investigator and witness to the strange facts that form the story;
but there the narration is given to Jekyll in the last chapter, who has now space to tell his
personal inclinations and motivations for the creation of his formula. Moreau, on the other
hand, is always detached and is primarily a villain throughout the book, with no redeeming
qualities that could have made him the double of Gothic narratives. In the chapter “Dr.
Moreau explains”, when we have more access to the character, he seems a proud and
ambitious man of science with no other visible counterpart of repentance concerning his
actions. Despite confessing to being “a religious man (…), as every sane man must be”
(WELLS, 2002, p. 101), Moreau does not feel touched by the pain he inflicts in the process
of humanization of the animals. His obsession with the plasticity of man becomes a satire,
once more, of the beliefs Wells himself had in an ethical level; the limits one may go to
when ethics are left behind.

The culmination of the figure of the mad scientist, considering this progression since
Shelley and Stevenson, is that of the double-figure, subject to many interpretations, turned
into a detached villain whose purposes are easily comprehended. Consequently, a
psychological analysis of the characters does not fit here as much as it did in the previous
chapters, particularly because here the double is not present. This cannot be considered a
weakness in Wells' fiction, however, but rather a different approach to a similar theme dealt
with in the past. Some conventions of the Gothic are still present, such as the sense of fear,
the pessimism regarding human nature and its actions, as well as the more general conflict
between past and present. In the same sense, new conventions are created, most of which
are related to a deeper focus on the scientific extrapolation involved as a means of creating
social commentary, especially regarding the own use of science for the wrong purposes –
 83

in the case of Moreau, the plasticity of man which is done in a purely physical way, and not
through intellectual enterprises, such as education, as Wells believed.

Resuming the first considerations about genre followed here, both Gothic and
Science fiction, with all the conventions attached to them, can find themselves present
from Mary Shelley to H. G. Wells. Genres carry so many associations with them, that it
would be a very restrictive decision to relate any book to only one genre. There is a “web
of resemblances”, following Paul Kinkaid's propositions, in all three books analyzed here,
all of which can be related to the number of conventions defined afterward as Gothic and
Science fiction. Another advantage of this reading is the considering of literature as an ever
intertextual process, as defined Julia Kristeva, a “mosaic of quotations” where different
works from different authors and genres can be put in comparison as motifs for one
another, all of which change the same conventions they once adopted into a new approach
to the genres. The particular choice of Wells to conclude this cycle of comparison is due to
the amount of effort and innovation into the scientific matter done by him, something
which was previously only mentioned but not specified – since there were other aspects of
the Gothic to be focused on at that particular time, near Romanticism. Wells' imaginative
power, scientific knowledge carried with social and scientific commentary toward the
position of man in relation to science and society can define him, as Darko Suvin does, as a
“turning-point” of the Sci-fi genre not even named yet, but already solidly defined by the
author, “the first significant writer who started to write SF from within the world of
science, and not merely facing it” (SUVIN, 1979, p. 32).
 84

CONCLUSION

Farewell, Walton! Seek happiness in tranquillity, and avoid

ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of
distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries. Yet why do I
say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another
may succeed.
Mary Shelley, Frankenstein.

The last words of Victor Frankenstein, in Shelley's famous novel, represent a

warning to Walton, the first and final narrator of the book, or, more than that, all men who
would venture in preserving ambition. This theme of the ambitious scientist is not
considered an “innocent one” by the young character by mistake. He is the first in this
tradition which would make itself present throughout literature maybe much longer than
M. Shelley herself could have imagined. Indeed, this particular branch of Gothic fiction
was so deepened and explored that, at a certain point, a new name was required for the
scientific Gothic. Not to say that all Gothic fiction had something to do with Science
fiction21, only a specific part of it that, now, around the end of the century, made itself
present not only through some classic Gothic conventions, such as the horror, the
unspeakable, the double, but also new ones that dealt especially with the new information
that the constant scientific development had gathered that far.

Ambition was maintained as a recurrent theme among those men of science, but each
time it involved a different motivation, said or presumed, through the respective novels
here analyzed. If the creation of life may have, in Frankenstein, the affective distance of
the protagonist step-sister as a possible cause, when one analyzes the book through a
psychoanalytical perspective, a similar feeling has in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde the nuances of a double identity formed by the pressure of Victorian rigorous

21 It is understood by the author of this work that only a small parcel of what both genres have to offer was
chosen here, even from the time period analyzed, but this is due to the specific scope and objectives which
this thesis must focus on. Certainly many other authors influenced the Sci-fi genre in other different but also
important ways, such as Jules Verne – who, like Wells, is also present in the 1 st edition of Gernsback Amazing
Stories, but it was thought as a better approach to consider a certain theme to work with; hence the mad-
scientist character and the question of ambition in Gothic and Sci-fi.
 85

behavior, creator of a repressed being that could only be set free by a scientific process still
in formation in the writer's imagination. In these first attempts, the same science which
creates monsters in fiction is the one which served as inspiration for the fiction to be
created in the first place, as this thesis showed through the writer's contact with what was
happening at their time. Scientific explanations, however, were still in an amateurish form
on Shelley's and Stevenson's hands and were not in themselves the main focus of the
books, which would rather develop the situations created through the new magic called
science, situations which had to do with the central character's psychological perceptions.
The science as a focus would only mature with H. G. Wells, at the cost of losing the more
Gothic personal approaches and focus on characters of the previous books. Here, a new
ambition emerges. Although Moreau still preserves ideas of perfectionism and defiance of
a Frankenstein and a Jekyll, his position as a detached villain eminently develops a more
definite vision of what it is to be expected from science, deviating from the ambiguity
characteristic of the previous books.

This thesis plays with this game of differences and relations among the books, once
they were considered in the same influx, operating from similar themes. Due to their place
in time, a progression was also possible to be defined, where certain aspects were
maintained in all of them, or just some of them, as well as how the main themes dialogued
with the conventions of the genres Shelley, Stevenson, and Wells were commonly
associated with: Gothic and Science fiction. The division of chapters reflected an early
impression which now, at the end of this work, was confirmed: that of a closer association
of Gothic themes in Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, especially the possibility of
using a background of psychoanalysis demanded by the books; whereas The Island of Dr.
Moreau and the whole of Wells' first cycle is evidently occupied with other themes, despite
retaining Gothic tropes. Even if Stevenson and Wells are alike in their use of Darwinism –
more overt in the latter –, as well as in their closeness to the fin-de-siècle, Wells' narrative
does not retain the same level of psychological analysis allowed before. Those
considerations are not done in a tone of criticism towards the author, but rather to
demonstrate how this Gothic branch of Science fiction, born with Frankenstein, managed
to change while preserving vital aspects that were maintained in history so fiction would
still have interest in them: the anxiety of scientific evolution and the place of men within
this setting.
 86

If Wells leaves out the depth of character development of early Gothic books, it does
so to focus on aspects which were not thought important that far, such as the specificities
of how this technology which creates monsters may operate, in a quasi-real demonstration
that is no less frightening, or may even be more frightening, than the monsters created
themselves. The analysis managed, therefore, to both determine common conventions on
the three books, as well as important differences that set the works in distinct yet
complementary places in the Gothic/Sci-fi spectrum of 19 th century English fiction. This is
explained by the evolution of science itself, from the natural philosophy of Frankenstein to
the Darwinism of Wells' whole first cycle of Sci-fi, the distancing of romantic and
character-focused Gothic towards a fiction that is more worried about the mishandling of
science and its outward outcomes, instead of inner conflicts involved with the characters
themselves, both agents and victims of their ambitious experiments.

The genres are thus considered in the way their conventions connect to each other, as
well as how they differ, considering Shelley, Stevenson and Wells. This intimate
connection between Gothic and Sci-fi conventions led to the conclusion that the latter
genre emerged from a certain approach of Gothic, which experimented with using science
as a producer of Gothic fears and a tool that enabled characters' repressed desires to
become real, only to later haunt them as their doubles; while, at the same time, the genre
evolved to the point of being considered something apart. This vision of genres as ever-
forming entities was dealt with especially in the first chapter, which listed a range of
authors who defended this position that defines literature as a “mosaic of quotations”,
according to Julia Kristeva, or a “web of resemblances”, as Paul Kinkaid defines them; in
summary, genres as tools that broaden the horizon of interpretation of a given book, instead
of restricting it to the conventions of one single genre.

Tzvetan Todorov is used as the most recurrent theorist due to important

considerations which fit the central foundations of this work, particularly the evolution of
genres from other pre-existent genres, the fact that a “new genre is always a transformation
of one or several old genres" (TODOROV, 1976, p. 163); as well as the consideration that a
work of art may manifest several genres and not the contrary. This last aspect reinforces
the approach used in this thesis, through which Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and
The Island of Dr. Moreau were analyzed as examples which fit the conventions of both
genres, in a particular way by which an evolution could be traced, where the presence of
 87

science could be felt increasingly in the books that attempted to those aspects as time
passed. In this context, the Darwinist theory of evolution was the most important external
factor that affected Wells, as well as Stevenson's, fiction, i. e., science affected the
development of Science fiction, as it had done in Mary Shelley at the beginning of the
century. Only now Wells' scientific knowledge contributed to the credibility of the fiction
he was engaging and, more than that, using his “formula” to catch the reader's attention
and set the plot in motion, the author could extrapolate certain aspects concerning the
principles he was working with, most of which dealt with failed attempts of controlling life
and its creation.

The evolution of Gothic/Sci-fi here analyzed moved from an inward analysis, which
falls more to the Gothic side, where the books' characters (Frankenstein and Jekyll) and
their repressed conflicts are focused, which is highlighted by the double figures born from
science they ambitiously dare to trifle with; to an outward consideration, which reclines
more to the Sci-fi side, where science's mishandling may change the future of mankind and
the understanding of what is to be a man in a Darwinian age. All the books may be
considered Gothic and Science fiction, since they all share certain conventions (E. K.
Sedgwick), or resemblances (P. Kinkaid), even though they may play out their role
differently, as it was made evident in previous chapters. The conjoint analysis in this thesis
sought to define the workings of those aspects so an evolution, a chain of changes, could
be made, therefore, evidencing the process of intertextuality (Kristeva) through which
literature operates, how genres dialogue and may have several conventions in common,
how they can be both alike and apart depending on how one analyzes them and which
books are chosen exemplars of the said genres.

A particular point which was not focused and may be considered a limitation of the
present work is the lack of an acknowledgment of the aspects from the post-Wells Sci-fi,
which could be related to the author in order to showcase his influence in the fiction to
come. This analysis was not made here due to the extensive dimension such study would
induce, considering three different books from three different authors were already chosen
as the primary corpus of this research. Therefore, an analysis of the progression of fiction
within 19th century English literature seemed more adequate, which does not prevent,
however, a subsequent study from taking into account how Wells' fiction, after being
formed from Gothic conventions, influenced the new genre of Sci-fi it unconsciously
 88

solidified in the turn of the century onwards. Therefore, the whole evolution of the genres
could be grasped in a broader aspect, with H. G. Wells as the turning-point, interchanging
him with relevant fiction that comes before and notably, Sci-fi after him 22. This would not
only legitimate the conclusion carried out by the present research, but also enrich the
intertextual relation of the genres and books to be analyzed.

Finally, this thesis argues that the study of genres is still a valid matter. They open the
horizon of interpretation of a given work by presenting certain aspects that may or may not
be confirmed therein, depending on whether the book may conform or defy the pre-
determined conventions. The manner how this action of adapting to a genre or deviating
from it works helps us understand what the author is aiming for and which tradition he is
dialoguing with. When one genre is put in comparison with some other it is historically
linked to, the repertoire of guidelines for interpretation becomes still richer, due to the
arising of intertextual relations detected. The Gothic and Science fiction genres made
numerous connections possible due to their relation common to a 19 th century English
literature that was ever more worried about the place of science in people's lives.
Therefore, we can say that they both existed simultaneously in the books analyzed, from
Mary Shelley to H. G. Wells – since conventions of what they would later be defined can
be found in those books –, as well as that the latter genre gained the proper definitions of a
separate genre towards the end of the century. There the still dormant aspects of the
previous books, the use of the principles of science for extrapolation and social and
biological critique, became the main focus, rather than the inner questioning of the self.

This is no coincidence, since “genres, like any other institution, reveal the
constitutive traits of the society to which they belong” (TODOROV, 1976, p. 163). Each of
the works analyzed, therefore, Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and The Island of Dr.
Moreau, represent a form of considering science in their time period, here more subtle – as
the product of inner monsters –, there more overt – as the informer of future catastrophes –
but always forming a representation of their specific contexts, and, as a consequence, of
the whole dialogue of literature.

22 One can also consider how other conventions of the Gothic distanced from the scientific-focused ones
may have evolved to new genres in the 20th century, which tended more to the horror aspect, for example.
 89

REFERENCES

BACON, Francis. New Atlantis. Chicago: Britannica, 1952.

BALDICK, Chris. In Frankenstein's Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity and Nineteenth-Century

Writing. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

BAKHTIN, Mikhail. “The Discourse in the Novel” In: ______ Dialogic Imagination:
Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.

______. “The Problem of Speech Genres” In: ______ Speech Genres and Other Late
Essays. Trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.

BELGION, Montgomery. H. G. Wells (Writers and their Work: Nº 40). London:

Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.

BRADBURY, Ray. Fahrenheit 451: 60th Anniversary Edition. New York: Simon &
Schuster Paperbacks, 2013.

BRANTLINGER, Patrick. “The Gothic Origins of Science Fiction.” In: NOVEL: A Forum
on Fiction, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 30-43, Autumn 1980.

ARISTOTLE. The Poetics of Aristotle. 3rd ed. Trans. by S. H. Butcher. London:

Macmillian, 1902.

CHALMERS, A. F. What is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, 1999.

COHEN, Ralph. “History and Genre.” In: New Literary History, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 203-
218, 1986.

D'AMMASSA, Don. Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: The Essential Guide to the Lives
and Works of Science Fiction Writers. New York: Facts on File Inc., 2005.

DARWIN, Charles. The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection; The Descent of
Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Chicago: Britannica, 1971.

DERRIDA, Jacques. “The Law of Genre” (Trans. by Avital Ronell). In Critical Inquiry,
Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 55-81, Autumn 1980.

ELIOT, T. S. “Wells as a Journalist”. In: PARRINDER, Patrick (Ed.). H. G. Wells: The

Critical Heritage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972.
 90

FIKER, Raul. Ficção Científica: Ficção, Ciência ou uma Épica da Época? Porto Alegre.
L&PM, 1985.

FLORESCU, Radu. Em Busca de Frankenstein: O Monstro de Mary Shelley e seus Mitos.

Trans. by Luiz Caros Lisboa. São Paulo: Editora Mercúrio, 1998.

FRANÇA, Julio. “As Sombras do Real: A Visão de Mundo Gótica e as Poéticas Realistas.”
In: CHIARA, Ana; ROCHA, Fátima Cristina Dias (Orgs.) Literatura Brasileira em Foco
VI: Em Torno dos Realismos. Rio: Casa Doze, 2015 (p. 133-146).

FREUD, Sigmund. “Repression”; “The Ego and the Id” In: ______ On Metapsychology:
The Theory of Psychoanalysis. Trans. by James Strachey et al. New York: Penguin, 1984.

______. “The Uncanny” In: ______ The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological
Studies of Sigmund Freud. Trans. by James Strachey et al. London: The Hogarth Press:
1994.

GERNSBACK, Hugo (Ed.). Amazing Stories. Vol. 1. Nº 1. New York: Experimenter

Publishing Company, 1926.

HEILMAN, Robert B. “Charlotte Brontë's 'New' Gothic” In: RATHBURN, C. Robert;

STEINMANN, Martin (Ed.). From Jane Austen to Joseph Conrad: Essays Collected in
Memory of James T. Hillhouse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967.

HENRY, John. A Revolução Científica: e as Origens da Ciência Moderna. Trans. by Maria

Luiza Borges. Rio de Janeiro. Jorge Zahar Editor, 1998.

HERMAN, David (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2007.

HINDLE, Maurice. “Vital Matters: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Romantic Science”
In: Critical Survey Vol. 2, No. 1, Science and the Nineteenth Century, pp. 29-35, 1990.

HOBSBAWM, Eric J. Industry and Empire: An Economic History of Britain Since 1750.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.

HOGLE, Jerrold E. (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Gothic Fiction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002.

JAMES, Edward; MENDLESOHN, Fara (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Science

Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

KINKAID, Paul. “On the Origins of Genre.” In: ______ What It Is We Do When We Read
Science Fiction. Essex: Beccon Publications. pp. 13-21, 2008.

KRISTEVA, Julia. “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” In Desire in Language: A Semiotic

Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

LEVINE, George; KNOEPFLMANCHER, U. C. (Ed.). The Endurance of Frankenstein:

 91

Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

LINDBERG, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 2007.

MELVILLE, Herman. The Bell Tower. Gothic Digital Series. Florianópolis, UFSC, 2015.

MOERS, Ellen. "Female Gothic". In: ____. Literary Women. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1977.

MORE, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. by Paul Turner. London: Penguin Classics, 1986.

ORWELL, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Annotated Edition. London: Penguin

Books, 2013.

PHILLIPS, Sarah Renee. The Gothic and Science Fiction: Shelley, Crichton, Stevenson &
Wells. Senior Honors Thesis in Arts and Sciences: English. Nashville: University of
Tennessee, 2005.

PLATO (1965). A República. 1st vol. Trans. by J. Guinsburg. São Paulo: Difusão Europeia
do Livro.

POE, Edgar A. The Murders in the Rue Morgue and Other Tales. London: Penguin, 2012.

POOLE, Adrian (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to English Novelists. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2009.

PUNTER, David (Ed.) A Companion to the Gothic. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

______. The Literature of Terror. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013.

RADCLIFFE, Ann. The Mysteries of Udolpho. New York: Dover, 2004.

RANK, Otto. The Double: A Psychoanalytic Study. Trans. by Harry Tucker Jr. New York:
New American Library, 1971.

REDD, Nola Taylor. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. 2017. Available at: <https://
www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html>. Accessed on: 02/04/2017

RIEDER, John. “On Defining SF, or Not: Genre Theory, SF, and History” In: Science
Fiction Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 191-209, July 2010.

RIVARD, Laura. Introduction to Eugenics. 2015. Available at: <http://knowgenetics.org/

history-of-eugenics/>. Accessed on: 02/03/2018

ROSS, Sydney. “Scientist: The Story of a Word.” In: Annals of Science, Vol. 18, Nº 2, pp.
65-85, 1962.

SCHOR, Esther (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Cambridge:

 92

Cambridge University Press, 2003.

SEDGWICK, Eve Kosofsky. The Coherence of Gothic Conventions. New York: Methuen,
1986.

SHELLEY, Mary W. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 version,
Second Edition. Edited by D. L. Macdonald & Kathleen Scherf. Peterborough: Broadview
Literary Texts, 2005.

STEVENSON, R. L. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Other Tales. Oxford:
Oxford's World's Classics, 2006.

SUVIN, Darko. “On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre” In: College English, Vol.
34, No. 3, pp. 372-382, Dec. 1972.

______. “Wells as the Turning Point of the SF Tradition.” In: ______. The Metamorphosis
of Science fiction. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.

SWIFT, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels. London: Penguin, 2003.

TODOROV, Tzvetan. Introduction à la Littérature Fantastique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil,

1970.

______. “The Origins of Genres” In: New Literary History, Vol. 8, No. 1, Readers and
Spectators: Some Views and Reviews, pp. 159-170, Autumn 1976.

TYNIANOV, J. “A Evolução Literária” In: Teoria da Literatura: Formalistas Russos. 3ª

ed. Trans. by Boris Schnaiderman. Porto Alegre: Editora Globo, 1976.

VARGISH, Thomas. "Technology and Impotence in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." In: War,
Literature & Arts: An International Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 21, Issue 1/2. pp. 322-
37, November 2009.

WATT, James. Contesting the Gothic: Fiction, Genre and Cultural Conflict, 1764-1832.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

WELLS, H. G. Experiment in Autobiography: Discoveries and Conclusions of a Very

Ordinary Brain (since 1866). New York: Macmillan, 1934.

______. Selected Stories of H. G. Wells. New York: The Modern Library, 2004.

______. The First Men in the Moon. New York: The Modern Library, 2003.

______. The Invisible Man. London: Penguin, 2012a.

______. The Island of Doctor Moreau. New York: The Modern Library, 2002.

______. The Time Machine. London: Penguin, 2005.

 93

______. The War of the Worlds. London: Penguin, 2012b.

WELLS, H. G.; PHILMUS, Robert M. & HUGHES, David Y. (Ed.). H. G. Wells: Early
Writings in Science and Science Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.

WILLIAMS, Anne. Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1995.

ZIOLKOWSKY, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein and Myth.” In: The Sewanee Review
Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 34-56, 1981.