Have you ever wondered if storytelling could save the world?
Before you roll your eyes at me for the preposterous thing I say, I must tell you they can. But you’re right, stories might not change everything on their own; they’re only a good start. Where do you think money came from? Trees? Last I checked, a sheet of paper is worth less than a dollar.
That’s right, money started off as a story, not an objective reality.
Welcome to the Backbone series, where I analyze how stories affect our subconscious and how they might, or might not, challenge our very own ideas about life.
W H A T I S T H E C Y B O R G T I N K E R E R ?
Before we begin, I have to mention the spoilers. This analysis thrives on them, so be sure you can live off them as well. If not, be sure to check out the spoiler-free review of this book here.
Moving on!
Gwendolyn Grimm, a ship tinkerer of the Union, is offered an opportunity to defeat her brain tumor by becoming an illegal cyborg in a circus. This, in exchange for her services to the cyborgs as their own personal tinkerer. Upon taking it, she finds herself involved in a deadly competition she hadn’t prepared for; her new family at stake. The purpose: help the outcasts make a life for themselves—away from the Fed’s incessant pursuits.
So…
Do they make it? Do they escape the clutches of the government?
It turns out nothing is a garden full of roses; Titus, the Emperor, wasn’t planning the cyborg’s restitution (like he had promised the competition would do), but instead, planning their demise. It turns for the worst when the very Mistress that owns said circus, isn’t worried for her employees’ well-being either; revenge for her murdered family is all she sees. And of course, her vengeance is nothing but directed at the Emperor. Cyborgs might as well have been the most expendable of things.
It does conclude with a happy ending for them, however. The Mistress is forever gone —as far as being thrown into space can do—, and the Emperor has no choice but to let them flee his planet. Good news on top of good news, Gwen also gets to keep her matches made in heaven.
But what does the story end up leaving the reader with?
Let’s see below.
I have to admit, for a romance book, I thought the romance would’ve been tied to the theme of the story. Yet, taking a closer look at the conflict within, it takes second place for me. The first? Cyborgs. And not just cyborgs, but technology itself.
If one thinks about the cyberpunk and sci-fi genre, one sees that their themes usually revolve around the excessive use of technology mixed with fragments of culture from our present, and how they impact the world surrounding it. Without it having any sort of regulation (from the State, people, or culture), technology creates interesting social dynamics that mirror those we already have in our world, but way worse, right? In essence, these futuristic stories act like an extreme version of our beliefs as a society, in order to make us question ourselves along with it.
The Cyborg Tinkerer is no exception to that rule; it presents a world where technology has merged with humans to the point of turning them into cyborgs—cyborgs rejected by society and its highest mandataries. Even among misfits, they find themselves in the bottom parts of the social hierarchy. However, the novel does miss a few key things to make sci-fi fans happy.
From the first chunk of the book, technology doesn’t take on much of an important role, aside from being descriptive of the characters and the world. Cyborgs are biased against, and no significant reason shows up. It’s not until the climax of the story starts, that the main character, Gwen, encounters a boy in the stables; too afraid of her to do his job right, because, you guessed it, she’s a cyborg. A criminal.
Gwen tries to explain herself, giving away the theme of the story:
“It isn’t the machine that makes cyborgs monsters.It’s us, our human nature. The machine only amplifies what’s already there.”
In other words, technology is the reflection of the human using it.
But because this is a story in possession of an antagonist, the other portion of the discussion lies in Gwen’s main adversary; the Emperor.
He says:
“That’s what technology does to the human brain. It rattles the mind and makes us prone to act on basic barbaric instincts.”
Leaving the exposition in dialogue aside, because both examples have quite a bit in them, the argument is as follows; the Emperor thinks that humans can be bad, but technology is worse; bad enough to turn ‘people’ into brutes. Gwen answers, that it isn’t inherently bad, that it depends on the human who uses it.
Since the protagonist is the one who stops the cruel plans from happening, she represents the winning side of the argument. Meaning…
Technology is nothing but a tool.
In good hands, it can be heaven, and in bad ones, hell. And if you dare doubt me, the novel shows this with an array of characters to prove a point. The first villain introduced is Abercan, who will stop at nothing until he is the sole victor of the competition, disregarding comradery at all costs; as he is in possession of cyborg technology, and because his intent is no good, he is made out to be evil. The next one presented is the mistress of the circus, Celeste, who has nothing but revenge in her mind; she does nasty things to her crew in name of some higher purpose—which makes her bad, too, of course.
And the third, the Emperor.
Him being the ultimate antagonist of the book series (in my assumption only), he’s the one believed as the final boss Gwen shall face, thus he’s the evilest of the evil out there. Titus is planning to kidnap Gwen so she can make him a weapon to extinguish the vermin he calls cyborgs. He says he fears the power they possess because their technology makes them basic brutes, unable to control themselves from slaughtering people with their artificial strength, as shown in his quote above.
What he doesn’t realize is that cyborgs are as human as can be made; not having much to differentiate them from people who wear glasses; glasses heighten vision as a cyborg's arm heightens strength.
In short, he is a mass murderer, thus his use of technology will reflect that as well. Simple enough to understand.
But, if this is true…
…It is possibly telling us that technology and morality can be linked to each other without question. Which means, technology is inevitably related to being used for good or for bad, depending on who stirs the wheel.
This could mean choices are binary; either a good person uses it for good, or a bad person uses it for bad.
No matter what we do or what decisions we make, our nature will dictate the result. So, I can be the hero, and if I use a gun to kill the villain, it’s all good. But what happens when the heroine uses said gun to kill a bunch of innocent people, not knowing they weren’t the enemy? Does this make the use of this technology good?
Or in Gwen’s case, she has dismembered, and thus killed, hundreds of cyborgs by the end of the book; her use of technology should’ve ended in her doing only good, if the human behind the technology is what makes the outcome. But she didn’t.
Because humans are complex; good people don’t always do good, and vice versa.
Likewise, labels are just as complex. Determining if someone is good or bad by their actions can be a whole other issue of its own; is the heroine I mentioned before a good person, or a bad person? And is Gwen?
The answer is far too difficult, because in essence, they are neither. It becomes subjective, some might think they’re still good guys, but some might change their minds vehemently. Though it’s not something easy to do, it is something interesting to ponder. And contrary to what one may think, the issue never gets addressed as a question throughout the novel; Gwen doesn’t seem concerned by what makes people use tech for good or not, it’s as if what makes bad guys, bad, is simply obvious.
So, this all comes to jumble of mess when dismantled. It’s clear that the author wanted to portray an antihero, and thus, the complicated choices that come with them. But in the end, what defines good or bad is never questioned, just merely hinted upon by the intentions of the characters. Gwen and her posse had the most positive of intentions whilst her enemies didn’t.
And there goes my previous example of the heroine and the killing of innocents. Intention can’t be a good tool for classification, either, because our heroine intended to do good, only to end up doing the exact opposite.
Whatever it may be, the ‘technology is a tool’ theme is left with little consistency. If tech amplifies the nature of the human behind it, it comes down to a discussion about morality, not technology; technology is just a medium, nothing more, nothing less. However, the novel doesn’t end up questioning morality at all, just assuming intentions are the telling sign of it.
Nevertheless, I believe that these are simple plot holes, and not what the author believes as her truth, or whatever. Perhaps these questions didn’t cross her mind, or entertained her enough. So instead of focusing in consistency, let’s give this theme a spin.
What if the theme above is just an incomplete version of another one?
…Or what could be another one.
Technology is what we humans have developed in order to aid us in mundane or unwanted tasks, to help us solve issues and entertain us. We (and our primate relatives) have used it since the beginning of times for something as modest as cooking with fire. It’s no wonder the Cyborg Tinkerer proposes the same thesis—tools are tools, and they carry out the will of the one in possession; cars, cutlery, language…they are all technology.
And, as true as this might be, we don’t wonder about knives being tools. Nor do we about cars, clothing or housing. So, should we preoccupy ourselves with the fact that technology is a tool?
Exploring why a protagonist chooses to use a knife for cooking or stabbing poses a more interesting story to discuss. It’s given that the knife is there to be used as its owner pleases to, so, why not ask about how humans—or creatures—decide to use knives one way or the other? Why not wonder what made society find a new way to use knives, due to social inequality?
In other words, the theme is proposing something interesting, but falls short when inciting a discussion about its effects on society. It reduces the warning to: “it’s not the ideas, the beliefs system, or the way we organize ourselves that will take us to a gloomy future, but our intentions that will”. As an example, I offer Altered Carbon, Netflix’s cyberpunk series. The show poses a different perspective on technology and society; if it’s given that humans fear death, how would technology be used to counteract it, and what problems could surface from it?
By this I do not wish to say that the story should’ve been better if added x or y plotline or theme, though it could’ve—in my opinion. The story is the writer’s story; I am not here to make the writer write the story I like best, but to analyze what came about in the pages they wrote.
…And perhaps all this is what the writer intended from the get go, so it all might be good as is since it told the story she wanted. Maybe the romance was indeed the most important aspect of the novel, and I just ignored it completely because I saw something else more interesting to talk about.
That said, I regret nothing.
In the end, this story was:
Just for fun.
L a s t t h o u g h t s
Writing is a hard thing to do for a living. It’s hard to craft stories that work, much less craft ones that change our narrative. Characters, plot and theme can be sometimes too much to handle, and even then, authors might not be aware of how far ideology and bias seeps in… Because we have to be honest, the very thing that makes those stories survive in modern society is the fact that we can’t see them. Breaking free from culture, and imagining alternative worlds is one of the hardest things to do, if possible at all.
If I were to say anything to summarize, I would say The Cyborg Tinkerer hasn’t ventured out from its cage too much, although it tries to portray a more positive side of things. And before you tell me not every novel should be focused on passing a message for generations, I will tell you I agree.
But with a twist.
Not every novel has to go as deep as to offer a way of making the world better, so long as it tries not to perpetuate dangerous ideas and to further romanticize them. We, as humans, have made life more painful than it should be, no need to further repeat the cycle with the stories we read.
Do take this with a grain of salt, though; this could be my thirst for change speaking.
If you want to explore how the elements of the story (characters, plot, writing and theme) work together, click here.
If I missed something—because I know I did— feel free to post it in the comments! I do not know everything, and my experience leaves me slanted to my own personal perception.
If you’re interested in reading the book and form your own conclusions, buy it here.
For more content like this, support me here. Every little thing helps!
And a big thank you to Carlos Andrés Acosta, your insight is much appreciated, without you, things would be much harder!
Comments