As we grow and develop in this world of digital writing, one of the newer and more challenging things we need to face is the creation of generative AI. Specific to what I am writing now, using generative AI is able to breakthrough standardized writing that we’ve been accustomed to, but also raises other unanswered questions to the academia as a whole. Both sides of this argument will be touched further down the post, the good and bad that come from this.

Generative AI in Education

Generative AI has been developed that can produce highly convincing human like text. This can be highly useful in an educational situation as generative AI can help produce content for you; this can be used by a student who has writers block or just wants to be more creative. It could also help with teachers to mark their students work as it can give constructive criticism to an individuals work.

Suppose a student is working on a creative writing assignment, and to help generate some ideas, the student decides to use a generative AI tool such as Chat GPT . The AI draws from a huge and diverse data set to suggest unique plot twists and unexpected, imaginative elements, and suddenly, the student is feeling much more creative. This kind of collaboration between human and machine can enable us to tell richer, more detailed stories. Generative AI can also help teachers. It’s not hard to imagine how generative AI might be able to analyze and evaluate written assignments for them, and much, much faster than any human teacher could.

An illustration depicting the duality of AI—futuristic and advanced, yet intertwined with human-like elements. ( Source: Medium ) 

 An image showing a futuristic robot with human-like features, representing the complex and intertwined relationship between AI and humanity.

The Parallels with Victor Frankenstein

The importance of us having a responsibility to the AI’s we create is as Victor had a responsibility to his creation, If we bring a child into a world then it becomes our problem and our duty to help them and take care of them. I think the author is almost giving us food for thought, as it is not something that is spoken about as frequently as maybe it should be do we want to have robots in our lives 24/7 and do we really have the time for that.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelly brings to light the importance of the human component of creation. Victor’s abandonment of his creation and disregard for its humanity leads to tragedy. In the context of AI, the lessons here point to a human centric creation. AI should be used to enhance the human experience, not as a complete stand-in for humans. The power of human/AI collaboration allows for greater understanding and empathy.

 Reliability and Biases

When tackling the phenomenon of integrating generative AI into the realms of education, there is a fine line in which people must cross. Although AI contributes a major deal in promoting innovation and getting things done faster, education practitioners must figure out way of addressing the ethical considerations. Areas to be addressed include the aspect of referencing, the ability to eliminate biases and integrity. By studying how the ethical considerations will be tackled, we are able to deploy generative AI for educational purposes.

Transformative Perspectives on Literature and Digital Culture

ENG 250 has been a transformative experience in the sense that it has been an intellectual journey of the past 10 weeks. In the beginning, like most people, I had a more traditional understanding of literature. The further we got into these readings, the more interested I got in the crossroad of literature and digital culture. The idea of what is literature itself was challenged in traditional definitions of literature and pushed what could be considered literature after new practices and new technologies.

One important concept I took away from the course was the building of digital competencies. Diverging through multiple aspects of platforms, for instance working with class notes using online documents that allowed other students to comment and leave their remarks. Platforms such as hypothesis helps with great tools to have open discussions and while everyone is taking notes at the same time on the same page, but this one seemed to be a prevalent theme in this course. What did you take away from working with the different digital platforms? I feel that one of the biggest take always from this course was being able to build and develop digital competencies. A small piece of that would be using online documents to work on our class notes and an another way would be using different tools like hypothesis to be able to have on open discussion with the rest of the class, while everyone is taking notes on the same page.

Engaging in collaborative note-taking using digital platforms. ( Source : Quora.com )

An illustrated flow chart on how to carry out note-taking on digital platforms.

Active Engagement and Participation Reflections

One of the ways I contributed to creating a strong learning community was through Participation in the classroom community. I contributed a lot in our self guided not taking assignments. These allowed us to contribute our thoughts and opinions to the nots of the whole class, helping to learn from other perspective. And also to have other recommended ways that I can think about all the subjects. During group discussions, we all helped each other with the subjects, we also helped anyone who had something to ask, while we were in groups, we can all have a say in helping each other, to help themselves.

Now that I can step back and reflect on my attendance and level of participation in this course, I certainly realized and acknowledged that being engaged in my education is a key aspect of being successful in it. For example, even when I was not able to come to this class in person, I still did my due diligence by listening to the recorded lecture and using the opportunity to engage with the online resources by asking questions or providing comments as any other student in the course would. So, during the times that I wasn’t able to physically be here, I was still engaged in the classroom which allowed me to not fall too far behind and kept that consistency up for the duration of the class so that my learning and involvement wouldn’t taper off halfway through.

Guiding Future Students and Future Implications 

There are many things I would advise to future students in ENG 250, but the biggest advice I would give them is to embrace the digital aspect of this class. Discussing, talking in groups, using digital components and asking for help are a must to success of this class. Moreover, every resource is valuable to a student’s learning experience as in prep groups and tutoring.

Certainly the understanding I have gained from ENG 250 will help me into the future, academically, professionally, and personally. The combination of literature and digital culture has allowed me to learn about some of the ways these two fields can be combined. I now have the knowledge to be able to work in the new and developing field of digital literature, scratching the surface of new maturing melding. When literature continues to form in new ways because of technology it will be interesting to see what a category like literature will really be called.

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.

As Monica Chin unraveled the layers of her insightful examination titled “File Not Found,” she sketched out an intricate patchwork that scrutinizes the delicate dilemmas of ephemeral digital records in our current technological epoch. Through her engaging narrative, Chin strikes an emotional chord with stories of folks wrestling with the fallout from digital keepsakes slipping away into oblivion and delves deep into the meticulous process of retrieving what’s been cast into the electronic nether. With a deft narrative touch, she rings the alarm bell for the need for sturdier safeguards for our virtual valuables, lobbying passionately for routine backups to serve as life preservers against the relentless tide of cyber misfortune—to soften the sting and malaise that hit home when our valued bytes make an unscheduled dash for disappearance. Her meditation serves as a lighthouse, casting light on the treacherous vulnerability of our online selves when shirling conscientious protection.

Enter Hypothesis.io, my secret weapon for dissecting the core of Chin’s investigative work. It’s downright astounding how this cutting-edge annotative tool has redefined my interaction with digital content, nurturing collaboration and reshaping how we engage across cyberspace.

Today’s gadgets have leapfrogged over their primary usages; they now act as vessels for an enriched back-and-forth with content in the digital realm. They invite us to dive deeper into an immersive reading journey where annotations are deposited, ideas sprinkled, and questions poised—all amidst the gentle light of your screen. And honestly, it’s a whole different ballgame compared to flipping through traditional paper pages where this kind of immediate exchange just doesn’t happen.

Now, I don’t mean to sidetrack here—but it truly is marvelous how collective intelligence flows without hindrance via these high-tech wonders. Reimagining discourse over digital scripts brings an added dimension to our scholarly conversations. With platforms like Hypothesis.io firing up brainstorms and scholarly interactions over online texts at a moment’s notice, we’re really cultivating lush intellectual landscapes.

Testing out Hypothesis.io opened my eyes to how these underrated geniuses of technology lift our engagement with content to new heights—dramatically reshaping not just our attainment but also shaking up how we interconnect within shared knowledge spaces. Navigating the internet is no longer about aimless drifting; it’s about purposefully steering through a sea of information!

This spark of insight nudged me towards a renewed perspective on our digital tools. Far from being simple gateways streaming endles data and trivia, these devices coax us to engross ourselves interactively with information in ways never thought possible before; they encourage us to take proactive roles from all angles.

Therefore, my energies are now channeled towards honing my cyber savoir-faire: fine-tuning skills in areas like annotation usage while sifting through which web materials have substance and which only emit fleeting vapor (possibly crafted with hidden agendas). And naturally, I wouldn’t dream of leaving my digital footprint indiscriminately exposed—hence why beefing up on cybersecurity actions is topping my priority list.

My sights are now set on uncovering more pathways that enhance shared analysis and discernment online while nudging forward healthy knowledge exchanges. Grasping fully such platforms that promote productivity and nurture scholarly connections paints a vibrant step in keeping pace with frontiers in innovation. Engaging with these tools both for personal development or to propel professional growth through virtual teamwork is gaining ground in contemporary society.