Artificial Life After Frankenstein

Eileen Hunt Botting is a feminist political philosopher writing about science fiction after Frankenstein, focusing on what she calls political SF.

She divides the books into three major parts, that are boult on single essays.
Starting from SF she touches three topics:
- Apocalyptic fictions, the myths about the end of the world, related to the debates about AI since its' boom in the nineties
- Un/natural fictions, focusing on genetic engineering since the first cloning experiments
- Loveless fictions

This book is interesting if you are a student or a professional, but it is not an easy reading for a non-specialist.

Eileen Hunt Botting is a feminist political philosopher writing about science fiction after Frankenstein. Even though people like me consider Mary Shelly the mother of science fiction (duh), it seems that many have considered her "only" an influential author of the genre, not its actual creator. Oh, the wretched critics.
Similarly to some other popular science books, the author starts with getting a little personal about her background in science fiction and fascination with the genre. Apart from Shelly's work, she invokes titles like The Stand or Flowers for Algernon, before she dives right into the subject matter.
This book would have been so much better if it had been more on the "popular" side rather than "scientific", because in its current form, it seems like someone's published thesis. Because of it scientific vibe, it was difficult to read at times.

What science fiction after Frankenstein has to offer? Botting answers that question by dwelling into literature and shedding light on some specific science fiction themes (AI, the End of the World, genetic engineering, digitalization, loss of humanism) from the viewpoint of a human living in the 21st century. A bit dry at times, but still a great read.

See my upcoming review of Artificial Life After Frankenstein in Booklist magazine (American Library Association).

This was honestly a difficult read but that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. There were a few concepts I wasn’t familiar with but I still had a great time reading this book. I had never previously read a book like this so it was somehow new and fresh. I did feel it was a little too scientific but I still liked this read because the arguments put forward by the author were engrossing and interesting.

This is an excellent book that I enjoyed quite a bit. It is geared towards an academic audience; however, I think it is quite accessible for those who may not be well-versed in sff studies but are interested in the history and impact of Shelley's work.
The main thesis here is that Mary Shelley created a new field, "modern political science fiction," that spurred new conversations around narratives of apocalypse, the (un)natural, and lovelessness in its time; the author argues that Frankenstein and The Last Man continue to speak to these topics in a contemporary context. This is an incredibly well-researched book unique in its comprehensive exploration of Shelley's works Frankenstein and The Last Man. By "comprehensive" I mean that the book:
1. Situates its own arguments in relation to the field of sff studies, posthuman theory, theories of affect, and theories of dystopian and apocalyptic theory and literature, which is a feat in itself;
2. Provides a very thorough overview of the historical context in which Shelley's books were originally published and discusses precedents and influences as well as how Shelley's books influenced future literary and theoretical developments;
3. Develops strong comparative analyses of Shelley's texts in relation to 20th and 21st century texts, including film and literature;
4. Develops its own interlocking argument about the novelty of Shelley's literary-philosophical positions through the concepts of the apocalypse, the unnatural, and love, expanding from this to comment on the political significance of these lines of thought in the Anthropocene era.

This is a very impressive text that will be of interest to those who work in sff studies, posthuman theory, and more.

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Review copy provided by the publisher.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>What a weird lot of conceptual holes this work of science fiction criticism has in it. There are whole large sections on which Botting is extremely sound--the rights of the child, for example, and its evolution in science fiction from Shelley onward. Good stuff. Unfortunately, that appears to be her previous book, and in this one she has extended her arguments about political science fiction in some very weird ways.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Whenever I am presented with a taxonomy, I want to look for its underlying assumptions to find the places where it may be missing things. In this case they leapt out at me without much looking. Botting divides political SF since Shelley into Apocalyptic, Hacker, and Loveless, based on its primary anxieties. Problem: not all political SF <em>is</em> primarily anxious. Problem: in order to make political SF fit those categories, you have to warp interpretations of vast swaths of it.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Since Botting seems to have swallowed whole cloth the history of SF that was in vogue 20+ years ago when I was in college, many of the earlier works that would have complicated this taxonomy are absent. I don't know why the recent ones are except that they don't support her argument. She doesn't appear to have ever encountered Lois McMaster Bujold's speech/essay on science fiction as the fantasy of political agency, which is odd because Bujold is not exactly a minor figure in the field she purports to be examining nor is her work even remotely irrelevant to the continuity of Shelley's influence in political SF. Missed opportunities.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The text was also filled with small errors and ideas that, if they were not in error, certainly were not supported. Particularly egregious was the label of Shelley as genderfluid in the same passage as Botting directly quoted Shelley as identifying, if anything, more completely with womanhood than Shelley's estimation of the women around her. Genderfluid does not mean the same thing as bisexual/pansexual, and I would expect either a critic in 2020 or at the very least their editor to understand that.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>I wanted this book to be so much more thoughtful and thorough than it was.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

3.5
Thank you to University of Pennsylvania Press and NetGalley for providing an e-arc in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.

Artificial Life After Frankenstein explores Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, its impacts on literature, and how the story compares to political and ethical decisions today. Looking at topics such as genetic modifications, machine learning, and the fears of artificial intelligence in our future, Bottling uses literary examples inspired by Frankenstein to explore these scientific, political, and upcoming subjects.

Artificial Life After Frankenstein is a book that I was easily drawn to on subject matter alone. I’ve been wanting to revisit Frankenstein for quite some time now. Additionally, my main scope for reading classics right now is exploring both gothic novels and early science fiction, so many of the novels I have yet to read were published around the time of Mary Shelley. I also studied Computer Science and school and now that I’ve been in the workforce a few years, I spend much less time reading academic works on the subject. So Artificial Life After Frankenstein was this fantastic combination of passions for me that I didn’t think was very common.

Regardless, I think anyone who’s remotely interested in the subject will have an easy time reading this book. While Artificial Life After Frankenstein is written more academically, it’s definitely an accessible read for those that are unfamiliar with these concepts.

The introduction to this book was interesting as well as it explores the origins and definitions of science fiction. This is something I’ve been reading about myself in the past few months, so it was nice to get an abridged history and some of the figures that helped shape it and coin terminology.

While reading this book, I found a combination of books that I have both read and have yet to read. Regardless of the context used, Botting was able to explain these books’ connection to the thesis without spoiling anything to readers (although books are often about the journey, aren’t they?). This definitely added a lot of books on my list that I’m interested in reading, from classic to contemporary science fiction.

Despite my continued interest throughout Artificial Life After Frankenstein, I did find at some points that there were discussions that strayed a little further from the thesis. Since I’m interested in these topics regardless, I didn’t mind that certain sections felt like they strayed too far off the track. If you are as invested in the subject matter as I am, you’ll likely feel the same.

All in all, Artificial Life After Frankenstein was a book that I’m glad to have read. I love the idea of comparing early science fiction literature to modern issues, and I love how this book discussed two of my passions and brought them together in such a cohesive way. This is definitely something to consider picking up if you’re interested in either Mary Shelley or her contemporaries, the growth of science fiction, or modern technological dilemmas and ethics.

While this book can be a bit of a slog (due to the professorial manner of the delivery) it still has many illuminating moments for those brave enough to pursue them all the way to the end. I say professorial because author Eileen Hunt Botting masterful use of English can be a bit daunting at times. Using a Kindle and a dictionary app aided me in my quest to finish the book.

Ms. Botting breaks the book down into sections and chapters. While the Introduction and Interlude were both lengthy, I was drawn in due to the use of past media that most people have probably read or watched. I was completely caught up in Chapter I – Apocalyptic Fictions and the various discussions on AI. This was followed by Chapter II – Un/Natural Fictions, another area I have deep interest in learning more (the biotechnological efforts to create life). Chapter III adds more information while addressing some of the questions that arise, such as will the pursuit of biotech and other “advances” destroy what we have defined as basic humanity.

I found many interesting passages where the author compares Mary Shelley’s life and her books “Frankenstein” and “The Last Man” with literature over the last 200 years, as well as the movies that have also been produced. The back of the book features Ms. Botting’s Notes section, with hundreds of supporting books and articles if one has the willingness to pursue any of her points.

While this might stretch your vocabulary and cause you to slow down in order to process everything, “Artificial Life After Frankenstein” is worth the effort. If you are a scifi fan you will be rewarded, as Ms. Botting will use many familiar references. Fascinating read that will delve into corners where we may not have thought to look. Five stars.

My thanks to NetGalley and The University of Pennsylvania Press for a complimentary electronic copy of this book.

I not only loved Eileen Botting’s latest monograph on Victorian science fiction, but found her theories incredibly useful for my research on Asian monster movies. Incredibly book that’s worth one’s attention!!

This was an interesting look at the ethics of artificial life in this time. This is set against Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. The questions that are raised in this book are timely and very relevant to what is going on in the world today.

I loved this, but it is for a niche audience. It’s exactly my wheelhouse, and I really admired the range it covered + the ideas the author puts forth and explores in the context of modern technological advancements, but also especially in its referencing of artificial life in art and literature. An engaging and well-researched academic work.