Frankenstein Chapter 4 Analysis

In the beginning of chapter 4, Victor finally watches his result of toils in amazement and horror. Here, Victor describes the shape, the color, and the movement of the monster in details, as if drawing a picture of it, like this: I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a comvulsive motion agitated its limbs.

Watching the monster move in disgust, Victor feels two very opposite emotions at the same time. He certainly compares the monster to so many things, but the most representative ones are given in the phrases “Beautiful” and “Wretch.” In a way, he is quite proud of his own accomplishment, which is shown in his description: “His limbs were is proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips.” However, in the other way, he is horrified and feels utter repugnance and panic with this “demoniacal corpse.” His horrified feelings are also shown in the climate of that day. “It was a dreary night of November” when he first saw his monster moving, and when he ran out of his apartment, he was “… wetted by the rain, which poured from a black and comfortless sky.” The ironic emotions of Frankenstein are contrary to how God felt when he created first human being; Adam. When God made Adam, instead of feeling aversion, he felt “good.”

            As scared as he was, he was wandering around in streets, not knowing what to do, or where to go. He also has nightmares, becoming increasing vulnerable and weak. His sentiment then is expressed in a passage from Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner here. The “one” in the passage, like Victor, feels fear, nevertheless full of curiosity. Speaking of fear and curiosity, he may also be compared to Adam, since Adam also feels scared of the warning but wants to taste the apple, probably from the curiosity.

Even after meeting Henry, his best friend, the fear continues to linger in his mind. It is true that he “… was unable to remain for a single instant in the same place; he jumped over the chairs, clapped his hands, and laughed aloud,” “… and his loud, unrestrained, heartless laughter frightened and astonished him. However, as he is seeing hallucinatios; “I imagined that the monster seized me; I struggled furiously, and fell down in a fit,” his laughters are not merely happy laughs, but they may be the dramatic expression of complex and extreme inner fears. Also, Henry nurses Victor for being sick, but this is not just physical illenss, but the mental one due to his fright of the monster.

Step 4: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

THW 

return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

            During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, imperialism spreaded all over the world, when more powerful countries took over weaker countries, where they exploited natural resources, humans themselves, food, labor, and even cultural artifacts. The number of total stolen treasures from weaker countries is unreasonably huge, and the victims, now aware of the significance of the artifcacts, are claiming to restore them as soon as possible. However, the previous imperialistic countries are asserting their rights to have the treasures since they got them using their own power, which is, according to them, just and fair. Also, since the previous imperialistic countries are far more developed countries compared to those that aren’t, they are still retaining the relics in their hands. These, should be returned to their original places for the following reasons.

Tourism is one of the most important industries today, bringing huge income to areas with relics. This is because most people, especially scholars, think that the cultural, historical artifacts are worth observing and examining directly, and that they could better understand history through the research. Due to this desire towards relics, the related industries, such as hotel, guidance, and entertainment industries develop together, ultimately bringing progress into the city or the state. Today, as the world is becoming more and more globalized, more people around the world are willing to travel far away to appreciate the relics. For these reasons, the proprietorship of cultural artifacts greatly alters the economic income of countries that own the artifacts. The ownership, for sure, should be of the country from which the artifacts belong to. Otherwise, the original country is being deprived of its economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. 

Jikji is one the most valued artifacts in Korea that has been taken by French by force. “Jikji” is the abbreviated title of a Korean Buddhist document, whose title can be translated "Anthology of Great Buddhist Priests' Zen Teachings". Printed during the Goryeo Dynasty in 1377, it is the world's oldest extant movable metal print book, and UNESCO confirmed Jikji as the world's oldest metalloid type and included it in the Memory of the World Programme. (Jikji) It is now possessed by the National Library of France, and although Korean scholars are trying their best to restore Jikji, France is stubborn in its view, not returning it ever since they stole it. The NationalLibrary of France is earning tons of money from the Jikji, and probably tons more from the different industries related to it. Meanwhile, Koreans are trying their best to take back what is theirs. Just because imperialistic countries were strong enough to steal treasures out of weaker countries by force, it doesn’t mean that they deserve to have them permanently.

Most of the cultural artifacts that are “misplaced” are taken by imperialistic countries using force. Whether it was acquired through winning a war, or through hoarding it secretly by using spies or illegal traders, this is called “stealing,” as long as it wasn’t agreed upon by both countries. This is an “international crime,” which is why this case should go through trials for fair judgement, let the artifacts return to their original place, and let the criminal country be punished severely. As a part of this idea, UNESCO regulations also drafted “Convention on the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownershipof Cultural Property 1970.” Importantly, the convention also requires states parties to seize illegally traded cultural goods and return them to their countries of origin. To date, 88 countries have ratified the treaty, but of the major art market nations – those that have prominent museums or large private collections – only France and the United States have joined. (Odor) Since this is obviously a crime, the UN should not make this as a recommendation, but make it as a punishment of a serious international crime.

It is true that the level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences is much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, interpreting or deciphering the artifacts is much easier, academically deeper and accurate in these countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can investigate and dig up the historical significance out of them, and use them to build up history. Thus, scholar will access much better to the treasures. This is the main reason for some people why these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably. However, deciphering Rosetta stone could have been done by local historians, if only the stone was left in its own country. Furthermore, although it is true that the developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology, it has been proven that the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles havebecome ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. The culture minister, Elisavet Papazoe, said, “The damage wrought by the museum's botched attempt to clean the 2,500-year-old treasure earlier this century had been much worse than originally thought.” (Smith)

She also said,

The findings of a Greek group of conservationists, who recently inspected the marbles, demonstrated that the very morphology of the sculptures had suffered as a result of the misguided efforts to make them whiter than white. This was the first time the marbles have ever been examined by experts outside the British Museum and unfortunately the findings have confirmed the fears that they were damaged irreparably. In some cases, excessive rubbing and polishing had not only destroyed the sculptures' historic surfaces, but deformed them to a shocking degree. (Smith)

Here, the fact that the British experts hadn’t been able to identify what was wrong before what Greeks have found out, whether it was intentional or an accident, clearly proves us that higher technology doesn’t necessarily mean better preservation. Mrs. Papazoe also admitted that “The debate around the marbles is full of myths which have been exposed with this new evidence.” She also said, “For the first time we have a scientific reality, beyond archive material, which we cannot ignore.” (Smith)

To sum up, it is only fair if the “misplaces” artifacts should be returned to their original spots, because the countries deserve the economic benefit coming out of them, the imperialstic countries literally “stole” the artifacts, and the level of technology is not always proportional to the level of conservation. It is understandable that many countries do not want to return the treasures back, for they are definitely bringing in so many dollars and they provide great historical references to many scholars, but it is right to return them as soon as they can.

Works Cited

Ana Filipa Vrdoljak , “THIS HOUSE WOULD RETURN CULTURAL PROPERTY RESIDING IN MUSEUMS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN”, international debate education association, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/culture/aboriginal-culture/house-would-return-cultural-property-residing-museums-

General Conference of the United Nations Educational, “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 14 November 1970, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Jessica Odor, “The Return of Cultural Artifacts to Countries of Origin”, http://www.uni.edu/ihsmun/archive/sc2005/Artifacts.htm (no website name)

Helena Smith, “British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’”, the guardian, Friday 12 November 1999, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/nov/12/helenasmith

“Jikji”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jikji

Frankenstein

< Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus >

Since I first grabbed this book in my hand, I’ve been excited to find out how the main character “creates a life.” Also, I was fascinated by the subtitle, “The Modern Prometheus.” It turns out that the main character is called Victor Prometheus, who was born into a family in Switzerland. All the family stories aside, Victor introduces himself to a life-long friend Henry Clerval, who turns out to be extremely helpful when Frankenstein gets into a very poor state after his experiment.

Before Frankenstein’s first attempt to create a living organism, he shows a great interest in alchemy and studies all the works of well known alchemists, and studies chemistry, especially alchemy like a mad person. This is kind of a foreshadowing, which probably laid the foundation for him to make a “brand-new monster.” In his school Ingolstadt, he meets his mentor, Waldman, a professor who was the only one to truly appreciate Victor’s passionate interest in alchemy. Waldman showed his works and devices he had, and even encouraged Victor to study “every branch of natural philosophy.” Personally, I blame Waldman for all the tragedies in the latter part of this book. If he hadn’t talked to Victor about how valuable his knowledge is, or encouraged Frankenstein to study more in the field, he might not have even tried taking this risk.

Here, as the subtitle indicates, Victor could be compared to Prometheus, who had an obsession for more knowledge about the world of Gods and Goddesses, and about the secrets they had. This guy Victor also has an infinite thirst to know more about life and death and eagerly tries to conquer the world of life and death. Studying night and day on this subject for a long time, he finally gains the confidence for controlling the “life.” Again, like Prometheus, this confidence gave rise to a terrible result, the creation of a troublesome monster. Prometheus also had the confidence that he would be able to save and enlighten the human beings, which led to his own tragedy.

The actual central outline of the story starts when Frankenstein devotes every bit of himself to creating a “new life” in his laboratory. He shuts off his contact from the outside world, even from his own family, throws himself to this scientific experiment, and combines the body parts collected from the morgues and cemeteries. At first, I loved the way he was engrossed in this project, so concentrated and focused as he was. If we observe how all the famous scientists throughout the history were able to create innovative inventions or develop revolutionary ideas, it seemed as if Victor was creating a life that could really be a living creature.

Here, Victor can not only be compared to Prometheus, but he can also be likened to God, who is thought to have made humans. This metaphor can be made because Victor, just like what God did, abandons his new creature without taking any responsibility for what he had done. Both Frankenstein and God try to stop the catastrophic consequences their offsprings had made, but they already had become unstoppable. 

Step 3: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

Argument 1

Cultural artifacts can better serve their values when they are placed in its original environment.

The treasures should be exhibited where they belong. Otherwise, they are merely disconnected pieces that don't serve their purpose anymore. 

Ex) Carved door

Argument 2

The imperialistic countries literally “stole” the cultural artifacts from the weaker nations, acquiring them illegally. This is a “CRIME.” The Court of International Justice strictly punishes people or nations who have committed crime, both domestic and international affairs, don’t it? Same thing!

Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000.

Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’. 

UNESCO regulations 

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects

Argument 3 (Counter-argument)

Original argument (one of the Points-Against)

The level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences is much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, interpreting or deciphering the artifacts is much easier and academically deeper and accurate in these countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can investigate and dig up the historical significant out of them, and use them to build up history. Therefore, these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now, since the scholars can access better to the relics. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably.

Counter-argument

Yes, sure. The developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology.

The problem is, the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles have become ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. (British damage to Elgin marbles 'irreparable'.)