Gabriela Lipson Histoy 105 Invisible Man Analysis
As some Victorian figures were idealizing Greece as the beacon of democracy, romantic authors were looking to Greek literature, myth, and philosophy as a way to hold-steadfast to a human and “seemingly moral” past, as English society was thrust into rapid innovation and development. For example, Lord Byron, a friend of Mary Shelley , was a part of the Philhellenism movement. ( Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philhellenism). I suspect this movement influenced Wells’ book.
The story ofThe Invisible Man bears a lot of resemblance to Plato’s myth The Ring of Gyges (Plato’s Republic, book 2) This myth poses the question, if you were invisible and unseen, would you use this newfound ability to get away with anything? Would all morality disappear? What would be the point of being moral, if no one even could see you?
Plato writes in The Republic, book II, “No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.”( Plato’s Republic,Ring of Gyges, https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato_dialogue_the_ring_of_gyges.html)
The Invisible man first commits crimes of stealing and small acts of violence. Then he moves on to acts of terror, when he realizes there are little to no consequences for his actions.
The Invisible man says “[I] The Invisible man must establish a Reign of Terror….take some town like your Burdock and terrify and dominate it. He must issue his orders. He can do that in a thousand ways—scraps of paper thrust under doors would suffice. And all who disobey his orders he must kill, and kill all who would defend the disobedient. (Invisible Man, Chapter 24)
I start to wonder if The Invisible man is also a critique of empire. What could Britain do in its colonies, when it’s actions were unseen by so many at home? Britain could rape, pillage, and show violence towards natives. Victorian globalization led to a period of greater “invisibility”, no hawk could fly over the whole British empire with a watchful eye.
News could be twisted as it traveled from recipient to recipient to fit the agenda of the empire—even if a telegraph relayed an accurate message.Upon the completion of the Second Boer war, (which took place before the book was published), there was a tremendous uproar in England—as discussed in our Victorians textbook—particularly because so many atrocities had been committed in Africa for the duration of the Victorian age without the general public knowing about it.
Again, was Wells making a veiled statement about the morality of empire? How could could one country spread itself so thin and maintain its morality? Wells certainly critiques empire in his book War of the Worlds.
There are countless ways to analyze H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man. I found a published article that I would like to examine and discuss with you briefly. I believe I am the only honors student from the History 105, so I will also try to summarize the book in a way that is pertinent to my analysis.
Really brief summary:
Griffin a young student and scientist—much like Frankenstein—becomes fascinated with how the eye perceives matter and light. The book actually goes into quite a bit of detail as to how Griffin arrives on his theory of invisibility. Interestingly enough, in the opening few chapters of the book, we find the Invisible Man trying to reverse his invisibility, working madly and tirelessly in a remote inn.
As the story goes on, narrated by a third—person omniscient narrator— we hear Griffin tell his story and trace back to Griffin’s university days. To fund his research endeavor, the Invisible man steals money from his father, who then subsequently commits suicide after he realizing that all his money is gone. He feels no responsibility over his father’s death.
Griffin’s invisibility experiment is a success; he makes the his neighbor’s cat invisible (excluding its glowing eyes). Griffin then disposes of the cat, releasing it onto the streets; it subsequently dies a few days later.
Griffin then drinks his draught of invisibility; and he becomes irreversibly invisible. Next, he burns down his apartment, and destroys all his books—keeping only three—when his landlord suspects something might be going on.
Griffin then moves on to terrorize two towns, ultimately killing someone and committing quite a few acts of aggression and violence. He steals from stores, homes,and hotels all under the disguise of his invisibility throughout the book.
Along the way Griffin asks a town bum to do his bidding. Griffin also asks Doctor Kemp (a former classmate of his) to aid him in reversing his state of invisibility. Doctor Kemp refuses to help, and Griffin goes on a violent ( ultimately killing) rampage.
I will spare you all of these details ( the towns names, other characters, etc.). Our protagonist dies in the end, during an angry mob attack ( that was a response to his violence, stealing, and killing).
Was the Invisible Man inherently immoral to begin with? Or did he become immoral when he realized he could get away with anything?
He did essentially drive his father to kill himself, even before he became invisible. He felt no remorse. Because of this, I will argue that he was inherently immoral to begin with; he could just more readily express this as the invisible man.
Now onto this academic paper:
Robert Sirabian writes of the Invisible Man’s context “As Richard Altick points out, science as a prestige branch of learning came about at the end of the Victorian period, when The Invisible Man was written, as Britain’s trade position was threatened by Germany’s emphasis on science (261). Early in the period, amateur scientists paved the way for the rise of science as a legitimate field of study in schools, but even as science became a respectable discipline and developed as a field of inquiry, there was a fear that the legitimization of science could erode culture and obscure literature. Tied to the period’s utilitarian bents, scientific study was often valued for its practical uses of improving society, and with the development of evolutionary geology and biology in the nineteenth century, a quantitative, inductive (i.e. Baconian) methodology became well established (Mason 146). Yet during the nineteenth century, Bacon’s status and scientific method are increasingly questioned, and the debate over inductive methodology and over the nature of science itself became increasingly focused and vociferous. The achievement of The Invisible Man is Wells’s treatment of science beyond its oversimplified conceptions, either as a purely imaginative, speculative pursuit or as an analytical activity concerned only with facts. Although an integrated conception of science is taken for granted in the twentieth century, in England during the nineteenth century scientific method was a significant issue for discussion. The romantic conception of science pursued by Griffin challenges a prevailing Victorian notion of science, defined as the finding of truth for social good through the factual recording and observation of nature.” ( The Conception of Science in Wells’ Invisible Man, Sirabian, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA80516887&v=2.1&u=avl_cvcc&it=r&p=LitRG&sw=w&asid=515155354cdc99291a0475951201a895)
I found Sirabian’s points to be very interesting. It is very clear that the book is a romantic, scientific novel, much like Frankenstein. While at the same time, the book critiques Romanticism and wildly imaginative theories.
What were the importance of these forward looking scientific ideas? The invisible man isolates himself through his study and crazy aspirations ( much like Frankenstein)almost rendering himself “invisible” in a different way, a metaphorical way.
Wells writes, “Great and strange ideas transcending experience often have less effect upon men and women than smaller, more tangible considerations” ( Invisible Man) when referring to the villagers response to the Invisible man.
Would crazy imaginative ideas be the downfall of society? Did Wells believe this?
I don’t think Wells actually believed someone could make themselves invisible. The science of the Victorian age wasn’t that advanced.
To summarize,the Invisible Man was an excellent read, and I wish I could delve deeply into each concept and metaphor.
It is evident to me that Wells used The Invisible Man to critique imperialism, romanticism and wildly imaginative scientific theories whilst inviting the reader to question the protagonist’s morality and their own morality.
Additional sources referenced:
https://futurism.media/the-invisible-man-science-fictions-great-horror-and-humanitys-high-tech-desirehttps://mises.org/library/invisible-man-and-invisible-hand-hg-wellss-critique-capitalismhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA80516887&v=2.1&u=avl_cvcc&it=r&p=LitRG&sw=w&asid=515155354cdc99291a0475951201a895https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/57/holt57art.htm
I particularly enjoyed reading what you had to say about Plato’s Republic.
It really calls into question what it means to “see”, and why it is that the most profitable option is usually also the most unjust. Questions about the definitions of words like “sight” and vision also remind me of this quote:
” To know ‘how best to live’ we must know what is
‘best’. In contrast to the subjectivist or the relativist,
Plato supposed that evaluative qualities really belong
to the object that is valued. Thus we call something
‘beautiful’ not because we are pleased by it, but
because it genuinely has, independent of being
appreciated, the quality of beauty (5). Values are
natural and objective.
Source: http://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/11/2/88.full.pdf
I look forward to being able to make more connections between Victorian science fiction and philosophy!! It is so fascinating how many ways we can draw bridges between different time periods and subjects across Western history.
Gabby,
Thank you for your illuminating post. I have not read The Invisible Man, so I appreciate the overview and connection to Plato. I was not familiar with the Ring of Gyges story. I have heard the myth of Gyges told slightly differently. In the version I’m more familiar with, the king had a very beautiful wife, and he forces Gyges to gauze at her naked without her knowledge to prove this. She catches Gyges and gives him the option of submitting to death for gazing upon the forbidden or killing her husband who has shamed her and becoming king in his place. Gyges selects the latter option. I don’t know which is the original, but it’s interesting that The Invisible Man casts Gyges as the villain compared to the other version which shows him as an unwilling participant forced by his superior. I think you can have an imperialist reading of both.
With the inherently immoral versus made immoral question as it relates to empire, I wonder if the imperial structure ultimately makes it impossible to behave humanely. If economic drives are your primary concern, maintaining a dehumanized view of the locals must have been necessary. How else could a nation rationalize such horrific treatment of people? If we are reading the invisible man as the embodiment of the British Empire, then we can read the circumstances of unlimited power as the arena through which his inherent lack of morality plays out.