Character Comparison in Science Fiction Works Essay
Analyzing literary works is kind of an advanced matter which presupposes some instructional background of the reader and his or her capability to grasp properly the underlying symbols and signs expressed by the writer of this or that work by varied means and tropes. The creations of science fiction style of literature are characterized by their specific options which aren’t typical of works of some other fashion. Science fiction works are distinguished by attempts to foretell future modeling all attainable and impossible methods of its development; one other their frequent function is that scientific facts or hypothesis are combined in them with incredible events, unreal creatures and their mysterious properties.
The distinction between science fiction and other genres of literature turns into evident – science fiction depicts unreal or hypothetically potential (under certain situations together with the event of science and compliance with the legal guidelines of nature) events whereas other literary styles deal either with absolutely actual issues (historical literature, detectives, psychological novels, etc.) or with absolutely unreal ones (fantasy style during which the occasions are depicted that might not take place in actuality underneath no circumstances).
Taking into consideration all of the above said we are going to fastidiously analyze the 2 science fiction works or, to be extra exact, analyze and compare their characters. These literary masterpieces are “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley and “Oryx and Crake” by Margaret Atwood. In order to understand more correctly the plot of those books and the traits the authors gave to their primary characters, let us provide certain details about the authors.
Mary Shelley was an English fiction, drama and novel author (1797 – 1851). “Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus” printed in 1818 is her most well-known fiction work which combines the above enumerated options attribute to the science fiction with novelist abilities of the creator. She can additionally be well-known for such novels as “Matilda”, “The Last Man” and others. Margaret Atwood is the consultant of the modern science fiction.
She is a Canadian fiction and fantasy writer, fascinated within the fields of scientific progress, genetic engineering and its penalties for the method forward for the mankind. Her worldwide well-known works are “The Edible Woman” (1970), “The Handmaid’s Tale” (1983), “The Robber Bride” (1994) and others. “Oryx and Crake” is the latest novel by Margaret Atwood, and it’s thought of to be the most effective work by this author.
As the authors are the representatives of different epochs and directions of science fiction genre their works show sure differences. While Shelley’s work concerns the incredible events that took place in the time modern to the writer, the setting of “Oryx and Crake” is a far future when, because the author predicts, the mankind shall be under the specter of extermination and extinction. Nevertheless, it is evidently that both works current the creations of one and the same genre, and this truth explains the stylistic and pragmatic similarities they display. Both novels deal with the part of science in the future of the mankind and with the function, positive or adverse, a character can play when given uncontrollable powers by natural and scientific knowledge.
To start the analysis part of this essay we should always define the objects of the above introduced evaluation and state the aims of the work. The characters beneath evaluation are the heroes of the novels “Frankenstein” and “Oryx and Crake” – Victor Frankenstein and Crake respectively. The essay might be devoted to the comparative analysis of these two characters so as to find out the similarities and variations between the traits they possess and to evaluate critically the abilities used to painting these characters.
I want to begin the comparative evaluation of the characters with analyzing the main hero of the novel by Mary Shelley – Victor Frankenstein. This young doctor was fascinated within the works of Ancient and Medieval scientists like Paracelsus, Agrippa and Albertus Magnus since his childhood. Victor’s father and faculty teachers weren’t enthusiastic about this as they thought of all those authors to be pseudo-scientists and their works to be deceptive for individuals who begin their studying course of. But Victor did not give up his ideals and continued to review the works by Paracelsus. These works fired his mind with the concept of giving life to inanimate objects, idea of reanimating the useless.
According to his father’s wish Victor started attending the course in chemistry. At first he was not impressed by the examine but then he realized that this sensible modern science might help him greatly in realizing the dream of his entire life – the mixture of the information received from the works by Paracelsus with the power given by chemistry and other sciences at the trendy stage of their improvement permits a person to rule the nature, i. e. to vary what the nature does and to reanimate the dead. The idea was a positive one – bringing again someone whose life was minimize brief is a pleasant intention, but the results did not coincide with the essential concepts, because Victor did not mange to regulate the facility of the information concentrated in his arms (Goodall, 19).
Victor was doubtful about creating the being using his fantastic information because he was unsure in regards to the results of his experiment. But then he determined to strive his luck and, because it turned out later, made the greatest mistake in his life. The creature composed of the components of a number of dead our bodies was animated by Victor, who hoped it to be a peaceable servant or friend. But the conscious of the creature turned it into a monster hating the world because there have been no feminine creature of the same type.
Victor was not courageous enough to make one other being like this and the monster ran away to the mountains. Frankenstein adopted him but could not make him go back to the house of his maker. The monster killed Victor’s finest good friend, then his bride Elizabeth and soon the well being of the doctor himself failed and he died – not by the hands of his creature however by the fruit of his deeds. Thus, good intentions brought deadly results to the man who had solely a noble purpose – giving life to those who have been deprived of it (Shelley, 1961)
The case of Crake from the novel “Oryx and Crake” by Margaret Atwood resembles the story of Victor Frankenstein in some details however the essence of this problem is totally reverse to what we now have seen in the Shelley’s novel. Crake, who’s positioned as the adverse character of the novel, has a horrible goal – he plans to exterminate the whole mankind with its issues and weak factors and to flood the Earth with creatures having no drawbacks – Crakers (Dimarco, 170).
Crake was initially just a excellent student of genetics possessed by the thought of constructing a creature with no weaknesses typical of human beings. His conflict with the protagonist of the novel, Jimmy the Snowman, is the leitmotif of the guide. Firstly, Jimmy was trying to prevent Crake from realizing his horrible plan of extermination the mankind but he didn’t succeed – Crake created a pandemic that killed all of the representatives of the Homo Sapiens species.
The only people left have been Crake, Jimmy and Oryx, the girl they each had been in love with. This truth was the reason for the most severe conflict between Jimmy and Crake and resulted in Jimmy’s killing Crake. The creator of a new race on Earth was useless and left Jimmy because the one answerable for the means ahead for this race. The story ends when Jimmy becomes the ruler of the Crakers and makes Crake the creator god for these beings. The man who planed to rule the world of the creatures he made himself was lifeless but even in this state he to control those whom he created (Atwood, 2003).
As we can see, the characters beneath evaluation have similarities in addition to sure differences. They both made makes an attempt to make use of the data they had to create new lives, they usually each felt the actual energy of their knowledge. But the needs they used their powers were reverse: Victor Frankenstein wanted to offer life to dead individuals to have the ability to deliver individuals new probabilities, while Crake’s concept was to prove his superiority over different scientists and to create the being that would obey only to their maker.
When Frankenstein noticed the outcomes of his experiment he regretted it tremendously and did his finest to eliminate the problems his creature introduced; Crake by no means regretted the extermination of the whole mankind and solely demise stopped him from completing his horrible plan. Finally, both Victor Frankenstein and Crake needed to play the role of the God who gives and takes lives, but Victor, no much less than, did not plan to kill all individuals on Earth to have the ability to get free house for his creature to stay.
All this leads us to the next conclusion of this analytical essay: the options of the characters of Victor Frankenstein and Crake current the generalized character of the whole mankind with its permanent need to be the master of nature, to control life and demise and to change the world it did not create. Both characters are in some ways comparable to one another, however on the identical time they differ lots. They both tried to subdue the character and to get power of giving and taking life and so they both have been punished for this try. They both made mistakes however solely Victor understood it and tried to correct. They both died however the one who deserved life became forgotten whereas the other one, though lifeless left within the memory of his creatures because the creator god.
Atwood, Margaret. Oryx and Crake. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2003.
Dimarco, Danette. “Paradice Lost, Paradise Regained: Homo Faber and the Makings of a New Beginning in Oryx and Crake.” Papers on Language & Literature 41.2 (2005): 170.
Goodall, Jane. “Frankenstein and the Reprobate’s Conscience.” Studies within the Novel 31.1 (1999): 19.