The Invisible Man, by HG Wells

The invisible Man is one of the author’s best narrations, the ones he wrote in his youthful years. The “fantasias of possibility”, as he called them, which he published between 1895 and 1901. The Invisible Man is a tale of solitude and alienation. A tale of an ambition wrongly (wickedly) directed. 

It is also, one fiction work that clearly casts a shadow on Science.

By the late 19th century, Science was a positive force, linked to progress and improvement of life. The treatment of Science in literature or papers was almost unanimously positive. Let’s recall Jules Verne, for instance: a positivist feast, and Science and Technology as radiant deities. That was the norm. 

From 1945 on, however, the thing was to change dramatically, even if there were some previous warnings, like Huxley’s 1932 Brave New World. Hiroshima and nuclear devastation was to damage the social image of Science since the mid 20th century onwards. And novels and movies were invariably to provide scenarios of Apocalypse.

But when The Invisible Man was published (1897), the suggestion of Science as evil was still rare. 

In the novel, Griffith, a chemist, discovers a way to make matter invisible, through a scientific process that Wells does not explain in the same technical detail as Verne used to. The author is more concerned with the social and moral implications of Science. Griffith is, like Victor Frankenstein, a guy who’s passionate for the wonders of the natural world. He researches tiressly, determined to pull out secrets from matter.

He applies his technique to himself and so becomes invisible, except when dressed, or after lunch. But he can't properly manage his new power, as a result he abandons all moral constriction. And knowledge without morality, science without conscience, leads to disaster. The topic has now become a cliché. But it was not in 1897.

The Invisible Man also makes us wonder if our morality could not just come from the fact that we are being watched at all times. By the others, by Society, by the State. Un uneasy thought. But if our morality truly depends on that, let us not worry too much. We cannot certainly complain of not being monitorized enough these days.