Author:
Shekhar Chander,Jha Smita
Abstract
This article examines the idea of protopia as propounded in Kevin Kelly’s The Inevitable (2016), which is anticipated in Mark Twain’s novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889). Contrarily, Hank Morgan, the protagonist, feigns to achieve utopia, to secure power and privilege, not to realize utopia itself. However, Kelly’s suggestion of technology as the center of civilization takes us toward the state of protopia. Unfortunately, it is misused for mass extermination in the novel. Drawing critical insights from Fick, Hansen, Lieberman, Dobski, and Kleinerman, this article investigates the scope of protopian response through reader-response theory and attempts to highlight how Hank’s techno-politics (pure) is in resonation with Twain’s protopian vision. It further reveals how it is corrupted by practical politics (impure) for power and comfort, for which Twain criticizes Hank. This research provides a blueprint for thinking through and avoiding the abuses of technoscientific power that the novel so horrifically puts on display for future readers. It endeavors to unearth the protopian reading scope to re-read this dystopian novel as a narrative of progress. This paper argues that to achieve the quintessential goal of humanity, protopia appears to be an appropriate model since utopia is unachievable.
Publisher
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Reference25 articles.
1. Andersen, K. (1969). The ending of Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Mark Twain Journal, 14(4), 21.
2. Bielskyte, M. (2021, May 19). Protopia futures [Framework]. Medium. https://medium.com/protopia-futures/protopia-futures-framework-f3c2a5d09a1e
3. Bloch, E. (1995). The principle of hope (Vol. 1
4. N. Plaice, P. Knight, & S. Plaice, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published in 1954)
5. Dobski, B. J., Jr., & Kleinerman, B. A. (2007). We should see certain things yet, let us hope and believe: Technology, sex, and politics in Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee. The Review of Politics, 69(4), 599-624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670507000976