Babakhani 1

Arman Babakhani
Professor Livanis
English 1A
11 March 2014
Compare and Contrast
Science and technology have arguably constructed and defined the basis of modern
civilization. Industrialization, communication, consumerism, learning, cooking, driving and even
scrabbling on a piece of paper with a dying pen, repudiating scientific and technological
enterprise, owe their deeds to technological advancement. Michael Chorost and Mary Shelley in
their writings try to embody an attitude towards the application and limitation of science, in order
to attest to their propositions. The two works, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, published in mid-
nineteenth century, and My Bionic Quest for Bolero by Michael Chorost, appeared in Wired
magazine in November 2005, employ a variety of similar literary devices to portray stories, in
which the protagonists play the role of an entertainer of ideas related to the use of science and
technology. However, the views projected in these two works are quite dissimilar and opposing;
they stand on the opposite diagonals of the dichotomy between optimism and pessimism towards
the notion of science and its limitations.
The literary style employed by the two authors differ greatly in how the persona is
portrayed in order to evoke empathy throughout the two stories. Michael Chorosts My Bionic
Quest for Bolero is a commentary on a personal experience, in which the author describes how
technology is in the quest of resuscitating and restor[ing] his lost hearing (Chorost 291). It is a
non-fiction, where appeal to scientific details coupled with the authors thorough explication of
the concepts through the use of literary devices embark the reader on empathizing with the
Babakhani 2

author, growing curiosity and interest, and gaining an optimistic view of the utility of
technology. This sort of commentary is different from the magical realism that Mary Shelley
utilizes to portray the ghastly project of a doctor who attempts the creation of a being from
inanimate materials (Shelley 285). By appealing to certain unreal elements such as creation of
life from non-life, Mary Shelley tries to exploit the magical or rather imaginary realm of science
to portray an expected catharsis. This catharsis is well expected by the premonitions of the
persona that a great promiseleads to a disaster (285). Notwithstanding the dissimilar styles
engaged in these two works, the protagonists are the focal point and the main reference of the
presented tone throughout the two stories. The styles rather discrepantly embolden the personas
significance in order to manifest the underlying effects of science and technology in the context
of the stories.
The effectiveness of the evocation of pathos and the authors attitude towards science has
been greatly empowered through an emphatic use of diction. This has allowed both authors to
sustain their subjective approach and to epitomize and reflect their attitude towards science based
upon an undergone scientific experiment. Mary Shelleys poignant use of words such as
destruction and infallible misery, ramifies and purges the notion of optimism, which Chorost
seemingly endorses in his depiction, from that of scientific ambition (285). This further
foreshadows a catastrophe that is bound to occur, in spite of the solemn and zealous approach
of the protagonist to pour a torrent of light into our dark world (288-286). On the contrary,
Michael Chorost, rather passionately, describes his desire for a particular song, which hit
[him] like a neural thunderstorm, and further elucidates how this melody nurtured his hearing
progress (Chorost 291). The aforementioned simile and the diction in illustrating how the author
himself could easily grasp the song Bolero, further insinuates the excitement and enthusiasm
Babakhani 3

that Chorost attains from hearing the song (292). After the loss of his ability to enjoy the titanic
and glorious melody of Bolero, the author purports to illuminate his interest in persuading a
cure (291). Consequently, this devotional attitude towards a scientific endeavor, in order to be
cured and hear Ravels Bolero once again, establishes, the protagonist, Chorosts welcoming
passion that appreciates science and technology and seemingly projects a gratuity that ceases to
condone pessimism. Whereas, Shelleys vile description of a grotesque outcome of an
ambitiously scientific project denigrates the scientific outreach by portraying the protagonists
extreme revulsion for the miserable monster whom [the protagonist himself] had created,
despite his exhaustive effort to undertake this quixotic task (288).
Thus far, both authors, having used similar literary devices, have bestowed contrasting
views in their attempt to portray the ethics and utility of science and technology. The reader,
through a glimpse of the protagonists feelings, finds herself inhabited in the same situation as
the persona, thereby being able to empathize and grasp how science and technology have shaped
the situation that the persona is in. The protagonist, Michael Chorost, communicates through the
usage of sounds and various literary and tonic devices such as sibilance and imagery to construct
the setting for the reader. This, therefore, allows the reader to envision the sudden-onset
deafness and the inability of the protagonist to hear the innately familiar tone of Bolero
(Chorost 292). However, after the cochlear implant surgery, Chorost delineates his hearing
progress through appealing to onomatopoeia:
When the device was first turned on a month after surgery, the first sentence I heard
sounded like Zzzzzz szz szvizzz ur brfzzzzzz? My brain gradually learnedto interpret
the alien signal. Before long, Zzzzzz szz szvizzz ur brfzzzzzz? became What did you
have for the breakfast? (Chorost 293)
Babakhani 4

This elucidation of the successful adaptation of the author to the technological aid coupled with
the utilization of the sensory imagery in Chorosts description about how the monotonous tone of
the Bolero would get louder and more insistent, until [it] roar[ed] in an overpowering finale
of rhythm, is indicative of the gratification of the author in his attempt to hear the song again
through technological assistance (292). In spite of the fact that when listening to Bolero, Chorost
metaphorically describes the nebulous sound of the instruments as having been clapped [by]
pillows (293).
Contrastingly, Mary Shelleys rhetorical devices ingrain a sordid and horrific atmosphere
throughout the setting of the story. The use of imagery, hyperbole and zoomorphism has given
the author the ability to portray the extraordinarily capricious nature of the protagonist to reflect
on the ethics of science and technology. Victor Frankenstein is described as an enthusiastic
scientist who hopes that his attempts wouldlay the foundations of future success (Shelley
286). He also appears to be overly anxious and considers himself to be doomed by slavery to
toil in the mines (287). This metaphoric comparison of Victor Frankenstein to a slave,
reinforces the protagonists zeal that has infatuated him with being blessed by a species as its
creator and source (286). Furthermore, the connotation that Frankenstein implies by describing
his creation as having shriveled complexion, demonstrates the breathless horror and disgust
that Frankenstein is drowned in, after the creation (288). This pungent catharsis portrayed by the
horror of the creation, in addition to the extreme remorse and lament of the scientist, deteriorates
the ethical objectivity of this ambitiously scientific effort. This somewhat undermines and
questions the limits of science and the boundary by which science should be restrained and
forgone.
Babakhani 5

Shelley and Chorost, in addition to the way in which they employ literary devices,
emphasize the plot and timeline of their story to embolden the way in which the protagonist
reconsiders his notions about science and technology. In My Bionic Quest for Bolero, the
protagonist is known but to have an obsession for a classical piece of music. However, his
curiosity in how his hearing functions becomes cultivated as he becomes the subject of a
scientific endeavor. After being offered a solution, Chorost becomes a narrator on the
technological development of the implant and his hearing progress (Chorost 292). Hence, the
passion for Bolero, captures the author in a quest to hear well again: a Bionic quest for Bolero
(291). The author gradually undertakes the inquiry more sternly as he explicates the procedure of
the experiments and further details about the frequencies of the Hi-Res software (297).
Michael Chorost, by becoming gradually preoccupied by the science behind the cochlear
implant, intensifies his need to hear well once more, which ultimately enlightens the idea that
technology is the only tincture of a hope of the author to escape the limited[ness] [of] the
physical circumstances of his hearing (302).
This idea is not only excluded in Mary Shelleys writing, but it is demolished and
transposed with the sullen and resentful impression of acquirement of knowledge being
dangerous and destructive (Shelley 285). The genius scientist, Frankenstein, is portrayed as an
omniscient narrator, who initially gives the reader advices and forewarnings about a calamity.
His inductive deduction of the crude consequences of science and gathering knowledge is
striking in his statements, as he has reached that conclusion based on a single experiment that
had failed drastically. Nevertheless, through analepsis and prolepsis, the narrator travels through
time to elaborate on his zealously scientific inquiry and to describe how his devotion and
Babakhani 6

exaltation caused by [his] first success turned into remorse, hatred and misery (285). This thus
projects a boundary upon scientific inquest and contrasts the ideas of ethics and science.
In conclusion to the analysis of the characteristic of the protagonists and the way in
which their attitude is projected throughout the writings, the distinction of the perspectives of the
two authors have become more apparent. Although, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is also credited
for its fictional and other social merits, and is not a diatribe denigrating scientific inquiry, its
certain implication on the ethical objectives of science and technology is valid and worthy of
contemplation. The applications of technology and science are more vividly attested and
reflected on in Michael Chorosts writing. His way of portraying the protagonist (himself) and
describing his passion for a song and the assistance of science to revive his hearing are positively
ascribed throughout My Bionic Quest for Bolero. However, it is in direct conflict with Victor
Frankensteins portrayed sorrow and contempt for ambitious inquiry of knowledge, making the
two works stand still on opposite sides of the spectrum of optimism and pessimism towards
science and technology.









Babakhani 7

Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz 285-289
Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, eds. The Presence of Others: Voices and Images
That Call for Response. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2008. 51-55. Print.
Chorost, Michael. My Bionic Quest for Bolero. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz 291-302