Introduction

In this investigation we will explore the scans of both the 1818 edition and the later 1831 edition of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. These scans are easily accessible, through the Gale Primary Sources database, which is provided by the University of Oregon. The main focus of our study is to analyze the differences in text and visuals between these two versions and understand how these variations impact the readers experience.

Variations in Text and Their Influence

When one compares the original edition published in 1818 with the second edition published several years later in 1831, it becomes clear that many modifications were made to the book. These modifications largely concern the use of language, the organization, and the development of characters within the narrative. Considering that Mary Shelley herself edited the version that was published in 1831, it is clear that the modifications were made with the intention of influencing the reader’s perception and analysis of the characters that are contained within the work, as well as shedding more light on the ideas and narrative goals that Mary Shelley had while she was writing the first edition of Frankenstein.

The intent in this text is to describe, in detail, the many ways the two books disagree. The objective is to find out the dissimilarities between these two editions and figuring in the changes Mary Shelley made in the 13 years that separate them.

1. 1818 First Edition (UO’s Gale Primary Sources):

The digital scans that were accessible through UOs Gale Primary Sources gives us access to what the book the 1818 readers experience, allowing us some form of the vision that readers would have gotten a chance to read, and gives us a bigger sense of the audience, not only the highly educated, but the images helps in the authenticity of the books, with the looks and type of writer as well as the structure of the pages.

Figure 1: A comparison of textual differences between the 1818 and 1831 editions (Source: UO’s Gale Primary Sources).

 A side-by-side comparison of pages from the 1818 and 1831 editions of Frankenstein, highlighting textual differences. ( displayed below )

2. 1831 Second Edition:

In her essay, “Critics, Compilers, and Commentators,” Josephine Donovan talks about the various digital versions of Frankenstein and how the format and materials used in each edition can affect the experience of reading, critiquing, and researching the novel. For example, the digital 1818 edition presents the story in its written form along with its original typeface and layout, making it a valuable source for studying Frankenstein for how it was presented visually. However, she notes that changes may have been made in the digital 1831 edition’s typography and layout, which may have an affect on the reader’s overall reaction to Frankenstein

Figure 2: A comparison of textual differences between the 1818 and 1831 editions (Source: Hathi Trust) 

A side-by-side comparison of pages from the 1818 and 1831 editions of Frankenstein, highlighting textual differences. ( displayed above )

The arrangement and characteristics of digital scans

Among circles, the discussion about the differences and similarity between transcription and archival photography or scanning. Many people wonder why did they want all these scansion of the photos or the transcription especially now that we are in the era of digital copies. Some said it is easier because it is a copy, so it is easier to find and get the information from there. But need to consider is it authentic that we are actually looking at the document and see the full document. For photos or files it is an action that is also said to be seen as now it is closer to the historical items but depends are you able to even read it?

Reflection

Studying the pictures lets you see a different perspective of the improvement of Frankenstein’s work. Within the text, there’s a number of differences there that showed that that author went back and worked on their essay which shows how they took this seriously. Layouts and styles verses the photographs that showed you the importance of also just looking for things within the text. Striking a balance rolling in the preservation of the literature forms significance is required to ensure the transcription and lay of accuracy of the archival scans.

“Creature-izing” Frankestein

Within the pages of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein“, the term “creature” is woven with intricate meanings and it shapes the undercurrent of the novel’s themes. We find in “Frankenstein” a moniker – “creature” – used to describe Victor Frankenstein’s quite unusual creation, a label that layers the text with discussions of identity, soul-crushing loneliness, and the ripple effects of unbridled ambition in science.

Shelley’s narrative isn’t your everyday tale; it’s a chilling sojourn into the depths where scientific zeal meets ethical boundaries. It drafts a portrait of one Victor Frankenstein – a man infused with youthful zest and an appetite for secrets hidden within nature’s bosom, who crafts what he dubs his ‘creature’. The appellation is no arbitrary choice; on the contrary, every syllable bears its own weight of significance across multiple layers.

The term ‘creature’ instantly highlights that this was no ordinary birth—it was an architectured existence. Unlike beings that enter this world following nature’s rhythms, this creature traces back to human hands and minds that have dared to venture where they perhaps had no right to step. Herein lies a questioning of man’s place in the universe—a meditation on whether there are thresholds to our impulse for discovery.

Moreover, vesting life artificially draws parallels with Prometheus and his legendary defiance towards gods. It spotlights Frankenstein’s hubris, his bloody-knuckled grasp at something that could quite possibly be sacred—the power to breathe life—and ponders upon what spirals may extend from such grasping.

Let’s talk about loneliness—the kind that clings to your soul—something that this ‘creature’ knows too well. Abandoned by Frankenstein and spurned by society at every turn, it embodies estrangement. Far beyond an abstract concept, such isolation digs deep into the narrative soil, flourishing twisted vines that remind us: to create is to be responsible.

Yearning to overcome solitude reveals so much about how we are wired for companionship, doesn’t it? The creature craves a touch of familiarity within its grasp but stands denied due to discourteous twists brought on by human fear facing the atypical or monstrous—cue societal critique via Gothic motifs.

But let us not forget—phylogeny recapitulates biography. The ‘creature’ entered stage left as blank as a slate can be but journeyed towards becoming an avenger molded by abandonment and prejudice. Benevolent potential overshadowed by malevolent turns speaks volumes about an ongoing dance within us all—the call towards goodness amidst siren songs leading otherwise.

So when Shelley writes ‘creature’, we’re beckoned into reflection over humanity’s stew of impulses—to react almost viscerally towards this invention and discern morality amidst Frankenstein’s trajectory. Sprouting from this narrative seed, these reflections unfurl unsettling questions about being parents unto novelty and stewards of said resulting existences.

By making the audience feel sorry for and compassionate toward the creature, the story makes them think deeply about the moral and ethical choices Victor Frankenstein made. By using the word “creature,” Shelley gets the reader to think about the consequences of creating life and the duties that come with it.

Engaging with Voyant and its Software

“Unraveling Textual Threads with Voyant Tools: A Visual Exploration of Literary Patterns” ( Source: Voyant Tools )

“A screenshot from the Voyant Tools software, showcasing a dynamic visualization of textual data. Colorful charts and graphs depict patterns, word frequencies, and relationships, providing insights into the intricate layers of the analyzed text. The tool’s interface allows for a comprehensive exploration of language, offering a visually engaging experience for literary analysis.”

Compound-Complex tools created by the program Voyant have a lot of random issues with vocabulary.

The following examples are provided to elucidate the use of the aforementioned term:
“The creature approached Victor with a look of despair.”
“Victor was horrified by the creature’s appearance.”
“The creature’s loneliness was evident in its actions.”

There seems to be at least 26-35 sentences it shows the word averaging out to be. An occurrence seems relatively common in this literature since the whole book in about a monster. There is a reading mode that is suppose to give a more complete and clear understanding to the person reading this program was made this way to defiantly help the reader essentially it to obtain the works of voyant so reading isn’t such a cookie cutter process and to really be able to understand and adapt a complete understanding with the ability to read I the sense of a class course or class room. This specific piece of immersive technology really breaks down how reading really is for 99% of people is not just going out and actually jumping int a book and reading it but trying to adaptive and read it and they way you need to get the most out of it.