Monstrousness and the Invisible Man

1282 Words3 Pages

In the novel The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells, and in the 1933 film adaptation of the same name, much attention is devoted to the question of the Invisible Man's humanity. Each work sees the the Invisible Man differently: as a monstrous being and a cynical, misunderstood man. H.G. Wells creates a sympathetic Griffin who is not a monster except in the imagination. The cinematic version, however, is a monstrous individual.
In order to determine whether or not the Invisible Man is a monster, we must first explore what a monster is. One of the qualities present in many Gothic works is the sense of involuntary evil that is embedded in the very nature of a monster. Some Gothic monsters really aren't even sentient; the werewolves and zombies of popular fiction are two examples. Other monsters are portrayed as having irresistible psychopathic tendencies, such as the insane murderers of Edgar Allan Poe's fiction. In either case, the monster is just fulfilling its nature.
Wells does not doom his Invisible Man to existence as a monster. Griffin is not mad. He has choice and is conscious of what he is doing. He also has a history of grievances against society at large. Griffin is seen as a deeply pitiful and sympathetic character at times, surrounded by a hysteria he has set off while trying to avoid attention. The battered, broken white form of the Invisible Man revealed on his death is not to induce revulsion in reader at the “monster's” corpse, but to plant a feeling of pity and a discomfort with the ordinary people who were his killers. As a work coming on the leading edge of science fiction, The Invisible Man raises questions of the proper role of science in society, and on the ethical applications of scientific knowledge. Griffin is ...

... middle of paper ...

...o the picture. Jack Griffin's only small redemption comes at the end of the film, stating that he has meddled in things “man should not know,” a small admission of wrongdoing.
The stories, although externally similar, draw two very different portraits of the Invisible Man. Well's Griffin is a commentary on a man living on the fringes of society, a freak and reject. It is a story of a man trying to come to terms with who or what he really is. The cinematic Jack Griffin, meanwhile, is arrogant and power hungry, another example of age-old hubris. As a social commentary, the film is condemning the various despots of the 1930's and perhaps addictive drugs as well. It does not, however, try to criticize society at large. Well's rendition is the much more interesting and complex figure. He is both villain and tragic hero, destroyed by his search to remedy his fatal flaw.

Open Document