The Invisible Man Discussion

We've read the book, now let's chat about it. 

I'll go through some themes, some imagery, some thoughts and theories. 

If you have any thoughts or suggestions or feedback, or to just tell me how wrong I was, then let me know by shooting through an email, I'd love to chat about it with you.

Contact the pod on: thesolobc@gmail.com 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome back to Solo Book Club. We've just finished The Invisible Man. Now let's have a chat about what we read. Well, I for one thought it was a pretty interesting story. Wells is obviously a fan of science and clearly he took inspiration of the scientific advancements happening in his own time. And arguably he's the father of science fiction, this genre that has just blown up both in literature, in TV, in films. I mean, you could argue you wouldn't have Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, any any of that sort of stuff without Wells' initial writings. We've got The Invisible Man, he wrote The Time Machine, a massive one, uh, War of the Worlds. He created these stories where our most outlandish ideas and thoughts were real. What could happen? What can happen? But most importantly, and this is something we will get to a lot in this episode: what are the consequences for these actions, for these ideas, for pushing ahead and defying physics or discovering new scientific principles and the consequences of those, at least in The Invisible Man, aren't positive ones. So let's go through some of the main themes and um characters of the book and uh let's see what we can figure out. Now I've done a bit of Googling, and the main the main theme for The Invisible Man seems to be anonymity and morality. Basically, the question is: how would humans behave if there were no consequences? And this question is posed several times throughout our lives and throughout history, throughout the world. If there was no police, if there were no laws, what would happen? And the general idea is that we would descend into carnage and a post-apocalyptic world, it would be a dystopia, basically. Because the general idea is that without consequences, people aren't good for the sake of being good. They're good because there's a negative consequence for being bad. Um, and I think we all like to think of ourselves as, yeah, if you took away the police, if you took away laws and prison and jail and judges, I would still be good. I would still go around and do good things. But like most things, we don't know. I mean, we like to think how we would react, but we don't know how we would react until we're actually in that situation. And for most of us, I think we would probably start heading in the same direction that Griffin did. We would start going into what can I get away with? Oh, I can get get away with this tiny little thing, and then you try something a bit bigger, and then you try something a bit bigger, and next thing you know, you're starting a massacre. That that thinking may be a bit outlandish now, but there are several instances throughout history of where there are no consequences and people just kind of forget their morals and to be good to other people. I mean, look, when there's a riot, all of a sudden there's pillaging, people are breaking into stores and stealing TVs and whatever, and and I mean, why? They don't need a TV, they got one at home. It's because they can. There is no consequence for doing it at that time. The police are otherwise occupied or too afraid to come out. Other people are doing it, so why shouldn't I? And this question has been posed so many times, and I think Wells is asking that same question here in the Invisible Man. If we were invisible and therefore didn't have to face any consequences because we were invisible, what would we do? I mean, yes, it'd be fun to tease people, and Griffin does that. Tease people, he knocks people's hat off their heads, and you know, is is altogether a child about it. But then he starts to get a bit darker. He starts to steal, he goes into the costume shop and ties up that guy. He starts killing, starts attacking. I mean, he he really starts to descend into proper immoral actions. And I don't think, I mean, there can be an argument that Griffin was evil all along, but I think at the start, I mean, okay, there's an argument that he wasn't the nicest guy. He stole from his father and then left him for dead. But I honestly don't think that at the time that he was making himself invisible, and even at the start of him being invisible, I don't think there was evil in his heart. I think that he, yes, wasn't a nice guy, but he was more fascinated about the scientific discovery he had found. The possible things he could do, he could become famous for it. He, you know, all this sorts of stuff that I think we've all fantasized about at some stage. But at that point, when he's making himself, he makes the cat, he makes the sheet invisible, he makes the cat invisible, and he makes himself invisible. I really don't think at that point he's thinking about, I'm gonna go and kill everyone who gets in my way. He's thinking about, and and here's a quote: my head was already teeming with all the wild and wonderful things I now had impunity to do. So he's already thinking, well, I can I can do heaps of stuff and no one will know, right? He sets he sets the house on fire, he goes into that department store and tries to steal clothes and he eats and and all this kind of stuff. And I think his thoughts at the start are very, how can this benefit me? How can this make my life better? But then obviously he very quickly finds out that being invisible isn't all it's cracked up to be. But throughout the entire book, Wells' question of how would humancy behave if there were no consequences kind of moves into if there were no consequences, would people become evil? And that's exactly what happens to Griffin. He very quickly goes down the slippery side of becoming an evil murderer. And he seems so it's weird because on one side he seems so unconcerned about the consequences, but on the other side, he's absolutely terrified of being caught and found out. It's almost like the ultimate imposture syndrome. Anyway, but but yeah, so Griffin's invisibility, um, his clear lack, well, his clear understanding that he has no accountability really causes him to shed his moral principles that he may have had if he were visible, if he had to be accountable, if people could see him and point to him and identify him. And maybe that's what Wells is getting at. Is when we lose our identity, we lose ourselves. Perhaps. But I mean we we see it as we go through the book. We see Griffin shedding his morals, right? So he burns down the apartment um he was staying in so that the others don't find his experiment. Right. Could be argued he felt he was pushed into a corner, he had to do something in order to protect the scientific discovery he had found from getting into the wrong hands. Okay, I can understand that. But then he goes on a rampage, he thieves, he steals, he breaks into a vicarage and then steals the vicar's clothes. Um, he attacks people, he manipulates and he terrifies Marvel, he shoots a policeman, he then murders poor Wicksteed and then is so intent on killing Kemp, God forbid Kemp talk to the police. But again, is this Griffin's true nature? Or was he driven to evil immorality by his invisibility? And there is an argument that similar to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which there are a lot of um similarities between the invisible man and Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, but similar to Mr. Hyde, I wonder if the invisible man Griffin, if Griffin's visible self is his Dr. Jekyll, and Griffin's invisible self is Mr. Hyde, it kind of brings out the evil in him. It's the evil side of himself that then leads him to descending into his reign of terror. And it's that total freedom through his invisibility and anonymity that corrupts Griffin, right? And he not only does he lose his morals, but he starts to purposefully inflict terror and harm on people. And where else have we seen that? In Mr. Hyde. That was his whole purpose was to scare people to inflict terror. And the Wicksteed murders is quite similar to when Mr. Hyde bashes that old man in the street. Why? Just because he walked past him. That was the only reason. And again, he when Wicksteed was killed, why? Just because he literally was walking home. And it doesn't make sense. And I think it really says something to evil people in our society currently, today. People are killed. Why? Sometimes the reason is as simple as they owed me money. People can just break for the tiniest reasons, as I'm sure many of our modern crime TV shows and films can give us multiple examples. But the creepy ones and the really concerning ones is when there isn't a reason. Is when the murder is just like, well, I just picked them. And that's kind of what is scary about the invisible man is there's just this unknown evil entity that could appear and inflict its damage on you at any time. And I mean, yes, Mr. Hyde wasn't invisible, but the evil that he exuded from himself, I mean, it terrified people, and he could just appear at any moment. And Griffin's anonymity is what basically corrupts him through his invisibility, right? He has this freedom from consequences. And I mean, that's also what we see in Mr. Hyde. He has this freedom of consequences. Dr. Jekyll is the one who's terrified of Mr. Hyde being caught. And I feel like the part of Griffin, the good part of him, is still there because part of him is terrified of being caught, of being put into a jail cell and not being able to get out because yes, he's invisible, but he's not like the evil terminator where he could just walk through the prison gates. Like that's not what he is. So there are limitations to him, and we find that out when he when the town mob finally grab him and wrestle him to the ground and basically beat him to death, there are consequences, and the ultimate consequence is he's killed for his actions, for the fear that he has brought people. But this same sort of freedom that Griffin feels at being invisible is very similar to the freedom of anonymity that has happened with the internet, right? There are trolls, uh, there are people who thrive in being anonymous on the internet and use that to others' detriments, right? They they use their anonymity to throw insults and throw threats and bully people. And this is exactly what Griffin does. This is exactly what he what Griffin does is exactly the same thing that the anonymity of the internet has done to ourselves. I'm I think we we have all at one point found ourselves, if not actively, doing something we would not do to someone's face on the internet, or saying or typing something we would not say to someone's face on the internet. Or if we haven't actively done it, we've certainly thought about it. We've we may have even been about to press send and then kind of caught ourselves, thought this isn't who I am. So I think it's really interesting that even today, almost what is it, 1897? Even today, 137 years after the invisible man was published, we can see these same effects and immoral behavior that corrupted Griffin. We can see it corrupting ourselves, our society, the internet as a space to exist. And isn't that just fascinating? Like Wells had no concept of the internet. Wells had had no concept of the technological advancements that have happened since this book was published, since Wells died. In in the last even five to ten years, our world, especially our techno technological world, has advanced and changed so dramatically, and yet themes of the Invisible Man are still relatable. Doesn't that just blow your mind? And and not even Wells, like we can go further back, right? This question of immorality without consequences was even being asked back in Plato's time. I mean, in Plato's book, The Republic, there are multiple books of it. In book two, he asked this exact same question, right? So there's there's this ring that when someone puts this ring on, they become invisible, right? It's like a magic ring. It's like a the Lord of the Rings ring, right? And so Plato asks in this book if one were to wear this ring and become invisible, would that cause immoral acts? Would they start committing immoral acts knowing that they didn't have to face the consequences? And maybe that's where Wells got his idea for the invisible man, we don't know. But I think it's interesting that this question that was asked, I don't know, in the ancient times by Plato, that was asked by Wells, and it is still being asked today. And and I mean we can see, yes, people become immoral when they don't have to face consequences. When there are no consequences, they do whatever the bloody hell they want. Society descends into anarchy. But I think Wells also brings in a moral to Griffin's immorality. Yes, Griffin gives in to being immoral while he's invisible. He has the power to do whatever he wants and he he commits evil acts, yes. But he's not very happy about having to do it, is he? He's not very fulfilled. He's like irritated and grumpy and angry all the time. And yes, maybe this may be effect of the drugs that he had to take in order to make himself invisible. But it's very reminiscent of Mr. Hyde. Again, Mr. Hyde's just angry. Why? I don't know. That's just who he is. And the same with Griffin when he's invisible. He yells at people, he gets annoyed with people, he gets so infuriated with their limited understanding of yeah, I'm invisible, get over it. And it's like, well, hold on a minute. He's constantly complaining, especially when he talks to Kemp. He's constantly complaining about the trials of being invisible. Oh, woe is me, I can't eat because you can see the food. I can't sleep because I have no eyelids to block my eyes. I can still see everything. He goes into these violent rages and he's constantly suspicious of everyone. So yeah, even though he's invisible and he's come doing whatever he wants, he's not living his best life. He's out in the middle of nowhere naked, freezing his naked little butt off. Can't find food, he can't get help. Maybe he's being forced into his immorality because he's invisible. Certainly a question to ask. But then again, Griffin faces the ultimate consequence. He's killed by the mob at the end. That suggests that, yeah, you can be evil. You can go around, go through your life, go through the world, doing whatever you want, and believing you don't have to face consequences until you face consequences. Until Griffin is killed by the mob, by the very people he put fear into and threatened to kill. They rose up against him and got rid of him. So it really seems the Invisible Man is a lot deeper than it than it looks at first glance. Yeah, it's a fun science fiction film, but what is it really saying? Okay, so our next theme, the future versus the past. We know the Invisible Man was published in 1897, towards the end of the century. They're on the brink of a new century. It's kind of like the time around the millennium, if you're around then. Uh, and basically there's a lot of societal upheaval. There's scientific advancement seemingly happening daily. You've got electricity all of a sudden being a thing. You've got Darwin coming out with his theory of evolution, which really shocked a lot of people. And it meant that people's lives, the way they live daily, and their beliefs, which up until now were largely religious, were being forced into change. And I mean, we all know no one likes change. And with change comes fear. What is gonna happen? What do these scientific advancements mean? Are we all gonna die? There's gonna be an uprising of robots. I mean, we still are worried about that now. Bloody in 2020, what are we, 2026? I'm still yet to see them strolling down the street. But this book really does seem to straddle two worlds, right? You've got the world of the future, this incredible scientific advancement of becoming invisible, and you've got the world of the past. You've got the townspeople who are very skeptical. Griffin and Dr. Kemp, obviously, one is a qualified doctor, the other is a wannabe scientist, and them juxtapose with the townspeople of Ipping, who are very suspicious of what they don't understand, as I think we all are, even when we are educated. They're very fearful of technology, they're fearful of the invisible man, something they cannot see. And this reflects that growing divide that the people experienced during Wells' lifetime, right? Especially around Darwin putting out his theory of evolution. All of a sudden, you were either one or the other. You were either religious or you weren't. You either believed in creationism or you believed in evolution. And I think, I mean, really, in all of Wells' books, particularly in um the time machine, but in all of Wells' books, he really looks to the future. What future advancements will we be dealing with in the 20th century? What will the 20th century look like? And, you know, no spoilers here, but in the time machine, what does a very, very incredible amount of time into the future look like? And the amount of discoveries that were being made in science, but also in medicine, you know, there were all of a sudden vaccines available. It really does seem to divide the population, right? You've got the educated and the uneducated. And we still see this divide today in our society. You've got those who are educated and you've got those that aren't. And in the invisible man, Wells shows this by the rural town of Ipping. These are rural people that don't know about science, they don't know about becoming invisible. And we see this even right at the start, Mrs. Hall. You know, she tries to defend the invisible man and talks as if she she understands what he's doing as a scientist. As a, you know, everyone's putting their ideas forward. She's like, nah, you're all wrong. He's this. And I understand, even though she's got no bloody clue. So I think that's an interesting point. Another layer to Wells' story in what happens when there's a scientific advancement that changes who we are. And that leads us into greed and self-interest, right? So basically, moral of the story, don't be immoral, right? Greed and self-interest, as Griffin takes on, aren't gonna lead you to a good place. They're gonna lead you to being beaten to death by a mob of townspeople. And we see Griffin as as, I mean, even before he was invisible, really, he's very into power and wealth and glory, right? He steals money from his father. He's all about, I'm gonna make myself invisible. Everyone else is stupid, even his scientific colleagues, they're all idiots. But I'm gonna make myself invisible, I'm gonna be famous and powerful, and I'm gonna have all the glory of this incredible scientific discovery and advancement that I'm gonna show everyone. And even Mrs. Hall and Marvel, they put themselves in dangerous situations, believing that they'll profit from. I mean, we see Marvel at the end. He profits from it, he takes the money that the Invisible Man stole and opens his own pub. And he still has the Invisible Man's books. Like he's he's done quite well from this ordeal. But he put himself in in a really dangerous situation to the point where Griffin was trying to kill him, actively kill him, which we know isn't out of nature for Griffin, but poor Marvel had to go through that in order to get the money to live the rest of his life. Like, was it worth it? Only he can answer that. And it seems that, especially in Griffin's case, greed and self interest override reason and therefore cause issues. I mean, Griffin initially approaches invisibility with a Curiosity, a healthy curiosity, one might say, as I think we all should have. Healthy curiosity about the world, how things work, what happens if I do this? And he believes that being invisible will give him advantages, as we know. But initially, what drives his actions, what drives his curiosity is professional interest. But once he realizes what being invisible can do, what being invisible can get him, he very quickly changes his tune, becomes greedy, selfish, obsessed with power. Right? He wants people serving him. Why? Because he's invisible. Doesn't bring anything extra to him. In fact, he's living a pretty horrid life. Takes money, he enjoys scaring people, attacking them. And instead of prospering from his advancement, from his situation, the greed corrupts him, makes him more destructive, turns him into a murderer. Doesn't take him any closer to his goal. He all he wants, really, I think at any point in the book, all he wants is a warm bed and a hot meal. And that seems to be the one thing he can't get. I mean, Kemp gives that to him and he's still not satisfied. And that brings us to skepticism versus belief. Is the invisible man real? That question's asked multiple times. Mr. Helas, Kemp's neighbour, he doesn't believe in the invisible man at first. He's going, nah, stuff that. I'm not gonna lock my doors, I'm gonna be out doing my own thing, doing my normal routine. No one can tell me what to do. Soon as he sees Kemp running for his life, well, he believes then, doesn't he? And he locks everything. He believes so absolutely that he refuses to give Kemp sanctuary. So the question is, is the science believable? Well, Wells explains it in a way that makes it believable. Could someone actually become invisible? I mean, we could argue that if they could, that'd be happening now, right? And even though you can't see the invisible man, can you trust that he's there? Can you trust that he's invisible? Can you believe that he's invisible without seeing him? I mean, this question is is asked a lot, particularly in religion. You are required in religion to believe in a God you cannot see. He is not visible. So do you need to have the same faith you would in a religious context? Do you need to have that faith in order to believe in science? There's a lot of scientific advancements and scientific discoveries that we can't see. Bacteria being one, molecules being another. These are all things that are way too small for the naked human eye to observe. So are these all things that are not real because we cannot see them? Or do we need to have faith in their invisibility? This is another question that Wells asks in his novel. And several times actually, almost all the characters face this question of is the invisible man real? I cannot see him, but I can touch him, but he's there, but things are floating in mid-air. It comes the question of the evidence, right? What evidence is there for his existence? And how do we weigh that against our personal visual knowledge? Can you believe without seeing? And we know that in order to thrive in a technologically advanced world, you do have to retain a healthy dose of sket of skepticism whilst believing, right? So when there are new scientific discoveries come around, advancements are happening at a ridiculous rate, as we are well aware. They really, like a very short time ago, did not seem possible at all. Right? AI, what was just was honestly science fiction up until several years ago. Can we believe that AI is real? The internet. I mean, you can't see it, you can't put your finger on it, you can't hold it, yet it's real. And it's interesting that almost everyone, well not everyone, because the sailor on the bench, he believes the invisible man. He all he has are newspaper articles, which we know can be not very true and accurate. He believes in newspaper articles without actively seeing the evidence of the invisible man. But there are a lot of people, Kemp being one or so, Marvel being another, the people in all the pubs he goes to can't believe that the invisible man is the invisible man until after he reveals himself. Until after he touches them, he punches them, he has a on a piece of clothing and tears it off. And this capacity, this people's capacity for belief is limited, and we experience this on a daily basis, it is limited by our existing experience and our perceptions of what we can see and touch. I mean, there could be someone invisible standing right behind me right now. Do I believe that? Or do I need evidence in order to believe it? And if you're believing in something where there is no evidence, is that just insanity? Oh, Wells puts up some brilliant questions here, doesn't he? When you when you start peeling back the layers, you start diving in, really get into the depths of things. But on the other side, having too much skepticism is just as bad as not having enough, right? So having faith on too little evidence, like we said, can lead you to believing in things that aren't true. Insanity, pushing you down the wrong path, and requiring too much evidence can put you in danger. As we saw with Kemp. He needed evidence and evidence and evidence. He had to hear Kemp's story. How did you become invisible? What happened? What drove you to this? How did you get here? He needed the whole story. And again, that's if we all think about our interactions with religion, that's exactly what a lot of us ask, right? How can I believe in this god or gods without seeing them, without having any evidence? Am I not being skeptic enough? Do I have too little evidence? Am I asking for too much evidence? Is religion not for me? Something that's quite interesting as well is that in the late 1800s, obviously there was this shift, right? Scientific skepticism was displacing religious faith. So, and we see this in the book, right? Griffin becomes invisible due to a scientific advancement, due to his scientific experiments, not through some supernatural power that was given to him from God. He became invisible by his own means. He didn't need some almighty bestowing something upon him. And so when the townspeople are believing Griffin is invisible, are they believing in science? Are they believing in man? And yet Griffin is a strange version of a god, isn't he? He asks people to believe that he is real and that he's there, even though they can't see him, they can touch him, if they dare. And when he becomes visible, he needs others to believe that he is real in order to get what he needs from them. He needs others to believe that he is real in order so that he can steal from them. He needs others to believe that he is real in order that he can eat and he can sleep. And he even says this in the book. He says something along the lines of, I need to become visible so that people know I'm here and they will aid me, they will help me, they will give me food, they will give me a place to rest, they will see me. Then he's concerned at how do I make myself visible in order to allow myself to become invisible at a moment's notice. And it's almost like he's trying to straddle this very peculiar line of wanting to be invisible, but then not needing to be invisible. And that's kind of where science and nature intersect, right? Wells wants to be visible, that's the natural thing, but he has this scientific breakthrough that makes him invisible. And this goes into exploring man's manipulation of nature, humanity's manipulation of nature. Griffin has manipulated the human body, as Dr. Jekyll did. And they're both desperately seeking on how to reverse what they've done, on how to undo their scientific advancement, their scientific discovery through chemicals, through vials, through your classic science experiment. How do they undo it? How do they go back to before? They manipulated nature, but they've realized that was a mistake. And that's interesting because a lot of the medical and scientific advancements in technology that we have seen have been good ones. They've been for good. There's less diseases, less of us die at a younger age, we have healthier, longer lives. Those aren't bad things. We have a better standing of human psychology, where we're happier. And if we're not happy, there are resources that we can go and and understand why we're not happy in order to make ourselves happy. Same with when when we have an illness. If I have a cold, if I'm unwell, I go to the doctor. He gives me a pill, a medicine, a liquid, a medical recommendation to rest, and I feel better. If I have an infection, we take antibiotics and all of a sudden I'm not dead. And these advancements were all being made during Wells' time. I mean, you look at the advancements of vaccine to smallpox, pasteurization of milk. I mean, the list is endless, really. That has all led to us in the 21st century living really bloody good lives. Well, much better than those who came before us at any rate. And very different to the advancements made in the Invisible Man, in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Those are ones that didn't end well. And yes, we've had advancements that haven't ended well here, the atomic bomb being one, nerve agents possibly being another, not possibly, actually being another. But all in all, I'd say scientific and medical advancements have improved our living conditions. But not for Griffin. His living conditions got worse, and he wanted to undo it. And so by Griffin becoming invisible, Wells is making a strong comment on the power and danger of science. And Wells, oh, he's such a brilliant novelist and a writer because he makes it believable. He makes the science believable. He explains it in a way that you're like, yeah, actually that that could you could become invisible. And we know that you can't, because otherwise people would be invisible. Someone would have figured it out, multiple people would have figured it out. But is Wells giving a warning, right? Because at the time that this book was was written, they weren't all living better and healthier lives. So is Wells writing a warning about what he can see the future is like? The possibilities of science, which did cause a lot of concern initially in the 19th century. And I think as scary as Wells makes out becoming invisible being and and and the fact that someone could figure it out. Someone who, yes, went to uni to be a scientist, but isn't actually a scientist. You know, he's just a dabbler, really. If he managed to figure out becoming invisible and then turn that into the stuff of nightmares, right? He's going around randomly killing people just because he wants to. And because Wells can explain it in a way that you're like, oh, that could happen, all of a sudden, this is a horror. And as we see, most science fictions do have a horror element. War of the Worlds is an example. Yet again, we are afraid of what we do not know, what we do not understand, of the possible paths that humanity can go down. And not just for the public is this book a horror, but for Griffin as well. I mean, we've already we've already talked about he can't eat, can't sleep, hates being outside, it's cold, terrified of being caught, terrified of being seen, of being recognized, being noticed. He realizes that in order to go outside, he has to be visible, has to be clothed. And that highlights the limitations of scientific advancement. Yes, it may all be cool and exciting, but is it useful once you put it into practice? Does it actually improve anything, or is it just a gimmick? And in Wells' other writings, he even attempts to broaden the public's understanding of science, right? He loves teaching the scientific method. And Wells has Kemp asking Griffin to release his findings of his experiment. He's like, hey, don't keep it to yourself. Write a paper, put it out into the world. You don't know what the scientific community is capable of. We can find a cure, we can find a reversal, we can bring you back, we can, you know, stop you from from starting your murderous terror. But Griffin wants to keep that to himself. And perhaps Willsy's making a comment here on these are the mistakes of not sharing science, right? These are the mistakes of thinking you can do it all, of keeping things to yourself. I mean, you've got the the famous adage, publish or perish. If you're not publishing your findings, if you're not publishing your thoughts, the scientific community cannot advance. Scientific advancement just doesn't happen. That happens with collaboration. One person has a thought, writes it down, sends it out. Another person gets inspired by that thought, comes up with something else, builds on it, and we go from there. But because Griffin doesn't want to make his discovery, his invisible discovery public, he has no hope of becoming visible again. He has no he he all he wants is to be feared as an all-powerful god, to strike terror, to have people bring him things and do things for him, rather than him seeing this as a chance to improve life. And because of that, Griffin is alienated. He's in he's alienated from society, from the village people of Ipping. Because the public cannot grasp what's happening. That's because Griffin hasn't put it out there. He hasn't explained it to them, he hasn't told them, hey, I'm nothing to be afraid of. Here is the good that can happen from this. And Griffin's own fault for failing, and really it's Griffin's own fault, right? He fails to communicate his discovery. He only communicates it to Kemp and then he wants to kill him. And we've already spoken about the alignment between the Invisible Man, Dr. Jack, and Mr. Hyde. And both authors are very clearly showing corruptibility from absolute power, right? And we see that in dictators and, you know, those sorts of people. And here's another question that's asked. Well, not really asked, it's kind of an adage, right? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is there no good person? Is there no one that goes through life and always does the right thing? And yet again, like I said at the start, I think we all want to believe that we are that person, but how do we know unless we have the option to do the opposite and not have to face those consequences? Would we still choose the correct way, the right way, the moral way? Or would we slowly start on the slippery slope of immorality that very quickly leads to evil? And Wells and Stevenson both show the cautions that should be taken with scientific advancement in your garage, right? They both show that when things are done in solitude, when you are silent about them, they don't they don't end well. Include other people. If more people knew about these experiments, if more people knew about Dr. Jekyll's experiments, about Griffin's experiments, probably all those bad things, those negative consequences they both experienced would have never happened. Because you would have had someone who would have been able to go, hey, try this. This should fix it. This shouldn't turn you back to Dr. Jekyll. This should make you visible again. And it kind of keeps you accountable, right? Keeps you accountable to make sure you're going down the right route. To make sure that your intentions and your actions are for the right reasons. So I think it's fascinating that the Invisible Man, whilst a pretty scary and fascinating story initially, once you start peeling back those layers, it becomes a really deep question of morality. And we can tie it to other books that pose the same question as well. So that's The Invisible Man. Thanks so much for coming along with me, for listening to the book. I loved reading it, and for listening to me ramble on about it. If you have any thoughts or suggestions or feedback, you liked it, you didn't like it, I was wrong here, I was incorrect there, let me know, shoot through an email. It's in the show notes. I love to chat to you about it. Now, next week, move on to our next book is gonna be A Study in Scarlet, the first Sherlock Holmes book. Now I know there's Sherlock Holmes retellings that are gonna be done a hell of a lot better than I'm going to do it, but you don't get my witty comments in those other ones. So yeah, we'll start with that. I have read it before, but not for a while. So I think it will be fun to dive in and see Arthur Coon and Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes book. Alright, we'll start that next week. See you then.