In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly proposes that the way evolution occurred was inevitable, and therefore technology’s path of development was inevitable. He is very convincing in his proposal of inevitable evolution in nature. He utilizes Australia as an example of an isolated place where evolution occurred parallel too, as opposed to being integrated with, the other continents: “Saber-canine teeth are found in both the extinct marsupial thylacosmilus and the extinct saber-toothed cat. Marsupial lions had retractable claws like feline cats” (106). Kelly also uses the example of the triceratops that “evolved beaks similar to those of both parrots and octopus and squid,” even though it lived in a totally different time and environment than those animals (107). This evidence of all forms of life, despite their different settings and living conditions, are on a seemingly predetermined path of development. Kelly is very convincing in his argument, and I am fascinated by his application of this principle to technology. New innovations often occur at the same time in slightly varying forms, because “when the necessary web of supporting technology is established, then the next adjacent technological step seems to emerge as if on cue” (138). I absolutely agree with his claim that certain technologies were invented at their respective special boiling points of sorts, when the conditions were just right and the world had a use for them at the time.
I do not believe this destiny of technology applies to the specifics of stories in the media. Kelly uses J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series as an example of his claim that certain ideas are inevitable. There are many basic similarities between the Harry Potter series and other books and comics published before J.K. Rowling’s novels. Kelly claims that “Multiple invention happens all the time in the arts as well as technology […] strange as it sounds, stories of boy wizards in magical schools […] are inevitable at this point in Western culture” (146). I do acknowledge that all ideas for creative works are either derivatives of previous works or are bound to be similar to other works in one way or another. The human brain can only imagine so much. However, to claim that something as specific as the Harry Potter series was an inevitable cultural development is a far reach. The light bulb, another example Kelly uses as an invention invented multiple, almost simultaneous, is an extremely influential part of technological history that changed the way humans live. However, while the Harry Potter series is incredibly influential in culture, it is not such a powerful creation that it changed the way we live and was an inevitable part of our human history. For Kelly to claim otherwise would be to contradict himself in the “Convergence” chapter: “the specifics of any invention are not inevitable” (138). Harry Potter, and any other story, is far too specific to be lumped in with inevitable, essential inventions like the light bulb.
Where do we draw the line between what creations are inevitable, and what is a product of the creator’s specific background and imagination?
To respond to your question Alex, I would first have to agree with your analysis above. The line between what creations are inevitable, I think, has a lot to do with, as you stated, if the invention has changed the way in which we live today. Keeping Harry Potter as an example, while these stories were influential in our pop culture society they did not change the way society at large lives, but perhaps created a ‘sub Harry Potter culture’ that now pulses through our own. The fact that Kelly draws on this popular series is evidence of its importance. Moreover, an inevitable creation comes from a piece of existing technology that has the ability to change the way society functions. This thin line of distinction may only be determined after the invention has had a chance to establish itself with the global market place. An invention that is ‘not’ inevitable may still have the chance to change society but I believe the distinction comes from if the invention changes our day-to-day lives. The presence of a new piece of technology that is heavily relied upon in the 21st century is sure to be a highly advanced form of technology but it will only become inevitable if it has the ability to change the way we live.
I found this post to be a good critique of the writing at hand. The citations were especially valuable in referencing the work, especially when I flipped to that page and found that I too was befuddled by his logic supporting the fact that Harry Potter was Inevitable. Whereas the light bulb was an invention that served a very specific purpose and therefore it’s multiple unique inventing makes sense, a work of any kind of art being inevitable seems a little far flung. That being said, perhaps what he meant in this argument was not that the exact story of Hogwarts was inevitable, but in the current social climate, such a story told in that fashion would perform well.
Still, it seems hard to believe that had Ms. Rowling never existed we would have such a rich and well designed wizarding world. But who really knows? That line you mention in your question is indeed a tricky one to pin down if it even exists at all. So many factors play into the creation of any form of art in a way similar to sculpting the individual that created it.