I wanted to touch on the machine’s importance to the character’s in the story, particularly Vashti. One thing that I kept seeing was how Vashti never questioned the machine or what it told her. Never questioning her parental rights, Vashti rattles off the machine’s statement that, “Parents, duties of,” said the book of the Machine,” cease at the moment of birth. P.422327483.” The machine and the order/regulation it provides serves as a source of comfort for its inhabitants who never have to think for themselves. Instead the inhabitants, such as Vashti, just pray; “O Machine!” she murmured, and caressed her Book, and was comforted.” The idea of never questioning the machine comes from society’s perceived reality that the machine is god-like and governed by a mysterious committee that is supposedly smarter/better than others in society. This way of allowing oneself to be governed by a more “knowledgeable” being is one that persists throughout society even today. In line with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, The Machine Stops demonstrates how society dictates a person’s reality and the consequences of this. Therefore suggesting that when one just does what all others do, awful things happen, such as the machine breaking. Consequentially, Forster suggests that if we don’t think for ourselves and break out of society’s mold as to what is real or okay, then our society will crumble and become “broken like a honeycomb.”
Daily Archives: September 13, 2014
The Lack of Mystery in “The Machine Stops”
E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” is no doubt an influential text in the genre of science fiction, and an important read for anyone seeking to learn about the history of the fear of technology. The beautiful part about science fiction is the freedom to create a true mystery for the reader. Since the reader is not privy to the rules and ways of the society portrayed in a science fiction piece, the author may release as little information as possible along the way to keep the reader guessing. Forster failed to take full advantage of this opportunity. For example, when the concept of Homelessness was introduced, Forster left no room to the imagination: “Homelessness means death. The victim is exposed to the air, which kills him.” This was incredibly frustrating to read. For Forster to put such a dramatic, important element of the story in extremely simple, almost condescending sentences is disappointing to read. I would have much rather liked to be left guessing about the customs of this futuristic dystopia rather than explicitly told every detail. By handing us all the information about the world of “The Machine Stops” in such unexciting terms, it made the process of imagining the scenarios more difficult to read, because I simultaneously could not fill in any of the blanks with my own imagination and was left with very few specific details.
Perhaps Forster preferred to focus his efforts on social commentary rather than mystery and excitement. Perhaps, as a pioneer of the genre, he did not see the opportunity to add some real suspense. Or maybe, when it comes down to it, E.M. Forster just is not as big of a fan of science fiction mystery as I would like him to be.