Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, a narrative imagery : By Faheem Aamer

Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, a narrative imagery
Faheem Aamer
Modern-day literary mathema has rejected the term, “illogical”. Now, either the phenomena are logical or they are mythological. As far as the title is concerned, it’s Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, which is similar to each other in a mythological manner but, logically a dark contrast with the science. To be explicit, did titans exist in ancient Greece? This question has more than one answer, having different reasons. So, it’s mythology. Whereas there is no second opinion on the fact that two plus two is always four and hence this is science.
No one knows who created Prometheus, the mythological titan. No archeologist ever found the mount from where he stole or explored the fire. There is no clue of the bird, twitching his liver every day. We only know that female humans explored and controlled fire approximately two million years before our times, to protect their tribes and this is archeology; a science. The only effect, which can be driven from this “narrative imagery”, is that certain powers are always there, like Zeus in the case of Prometheus, who oppose new scientific inventions till they are sure to benefit themselves and their own class.
Likewise, Frankenstein is a product of Ms. Shelley’s “narrative imagery”. Frankenstein was no Benjamin Franklin who discovered electricity a century before Ms. Shelley penned down her brown thoughts while enjoying the picturesque of Lac Leman along with Lord Byron. So, a literary critic has to dig deeper into the characters and plot, to relate them with humanity and scientific progress. But, he or she can only find out that Ms. Shelley tries to link up everyday science to her narrative, leaving a question in a reader’s mind; is scientific progress a blessing for humanity, or is it a danger?? Like R. Walton, who never had an appetite to think beyond Russia’s scenic beauty, expresses his interests in life in his first letter to his sister.
Though, R. Walton breaks a social rule as, it’s not always a necessity, which compels a human to invent. It may be a natural human instinct of discovery, yet he seems to be stuck, with the descriptive imageries in his first two letters. It seems that he is relating a “tale of two beautiful Russian cities” with a blend of multiple feelings of solitude, which might be called isolation. How is it possible that he only came across a beautiful place in the mentioned cities and there were no people, no simple gadgets that people commonly used, no architecture, etc? These “narrative descriptions” take him away from realism, as he does not feature the culture of the cities, which in principle take birth from the mode of production, tools of production, and languages in that particular territory; which certainly is not England.
In the first paragraph of R. Walton’s second letter to his sister, a critic witnesses two words; boat and “dauntless courage”. The boat is one of the four basic inventions of the human. The boat was invented as a means of transport and was used to carry goods, animals, and people before and after the agricultural revolution. The invention of the boat was a scientific blessing of that time. But, when the society evolved into a colonial set up of economics, a few people recognized of possessing a “dauntless courage” searched continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia, and converted this great scientific invention into the death machine in form of warships. So, one can easily derive that a scientific invention is a blessing in itself, but it is the use that makes it a danger to humanity. No one has ever held Albert Einstein responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
In the third paragraph of his second letter, R. Walton admires an Englishman for not being softened by civilization. This envisages a mindset, appreciating the status quo, instead of evolution and scientific progress. At this point of the letter, a critic has to think of a person who has a modern boat, who likes to use scientific inventions for his pleasure and still admires a person who got stagnant on the path of evolution. Scientific growth certainly becomes a danger, if possessed by a “traditionalist” who cannot see beyond his or her personal feelings or is leading a life of social isolation. Likewise, R. Walton describes the master, a youth in solitude and especially the Russian lady; as denying his admiration for his sister’s feel of fostering. He is denying the fact that if science does not break the taboos, it is a danger to society. The narration of “Ancient Mariner” in the end is another description, supporting this argument.
So, finally, in the third paragraph of his fourth letter, R. Walton benefits himself and his crew with a map, a sled, and a telescope. Today’s readers know that Christopher Columbus and Vasco-da-Gama followed the maps of an Arab scholar, Mohammad Al-Adreesi, who had a distinction for developing the maps in an inverse format. Being explicit, Al-Adreesi used to keep the North at the bottom and the sailors had to follow them inversely. It is needless to mention that the said maps opened the flood gates of the benefits of science. It’s also self-explanatory that Galileo developed Hans Lipperhy’s old version of “lenses” to the modern-day telescope, much before these letters were written and published.
Adding to the above, R. Walton rescues a dog and a human. Was it just Mr. Walton’s kindness? No doubt, this was his kindness, but coupled with a scientific invention and that is the vessel or the boat, which is one of the first four major inventions of mankind.