Category Archives: Uncategorized

Analysis of Romanticism in Frankenstein Through Digital Tools

 

This proposal would be an outline for understanding and analyzing the Romantic trends Mary Shelley incorporates in Frankenstein through technological tools. Through technology, analyzing novels becomes easier and more efficient. It is a new method to studying novels in literature courses, whereas the “old” method requires intense, close readings to find key words and themes in the text. Instead, I will be reading digital texts and novels and analyzing them through a program called Voyant Tools. Voyant Tools is a web-based text reading and analysis program. It is a program that is designed to make reading and interpretive practices easier for humanities students and the general public. The program allows me to find key terms and themes simply by typing what I want to find in the search bar. This is a quick and efficient way to closely read texts. This method of close reading for digital texts through Voyant Tools allows me to study the Romantic ideas in Frankenstein.

https://voyant-tools.org/?corpus=6fa4972ffdfbd13fbc93ee7eef21ed10&query=%22wild%20and%22

 

Romanticism was an intellectual movement that was born from opposition to Enlightenment views that emphasized reason, knowledge, and science. In contrast, Romanticism focused on feelings, love, and imagination. One key example of a romantic literary work is the novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818, which became her most famous work that embodied Romanticism. Victor Frankenstein, the main character, is a romantic character because he represents the Romantic ideals of imagination and innovation. Other examples of Romanticism in the novel appear when Shelley incorporates vivid imagery of nature. Throughout the novel, Shelley describes the awesomeness of nature. The feelings of Shelley’s characters often copy the state of nature around them. For example, the icy descriptions of the land where Walton goes to and where the monster retreats emphasizes the monster’s loneliness. The dreary landscape can also mirror the isolation that Walton felt when he traveled into this cold land in the beginning of the book. Another example is the scene where Victor wakes up with regret after creating his monster. He reflects that the morning is “dismal and wet” (Shelley) and he begins to fear his own creation. Shelley repeats this theme where weather conditions are similar to Victor’s feelings and thoughts. These descriptions of nature, parallel to a number of emotions that are expressed by the characters, help solidify Frankenstein as one of the greatest Romantic novel of its time.

 

Voyant Tools-horror, creatures

In Voyant Tools, the “trends chart” shows the frequency of the words ‘horror’ and ‘creature’ in the novel. They fluctuate simultaneously as parallel themes throughout the novel, which shows that the words must be related in that horror is caused by the creature. However, the creature is more horrified than Victor Frankenstein himself. Through close readings in the “Key words in context” tool, of the novel shows through keywords in the context tool in Voyant Tools, the creature is shown to be more horrified than Victor himself. This close reading proves that there is a difference between the words found in context and the words graphed on the trend chart. In Frankenstein corpus, the “Terms Berry” tool shows common words such as wild, wood, and the sea. I misinterpreted the word “wild” in the novel because I thought it was associated with the description of the creature, when in fact, the “Key words in Context” tool showed that wild described the landscape of Frankenstein. Trends may misrepresent the Romanticism imagery in the trends graph, however it is impossible to go wrong with understanding the meaning of words, such as wild, because they are explicitly stated in the text.Voyant Tools-horror, creatures

The combination of technology and digital tools in studying the language in Frankenstein improved the efficiency of my analysis of the novel. Through Voyant Tools, I was able to easily identify key terms and locate trends throughout the novel that embodied Romanticism.

571 Final Presentation

Post-script:  Although the PPT is properly embedded on my blog, I think that the settings on our course blog site aren’t the same, so my slides appear as individual images. Crud! However, if you scroll down to below the final slide and then click on “Original Post” it will redirect you to my page that has it formatted correctly. 

I just wanted to thank all of the students in 571 this semester — Alec, Ally, Hussah, Nhu, Safa, and Vincent — for helping to make the course so enjoyable. To be honest, I think that I learned as much from you as from Dr. Howe this semester (okay, well almost as much as I did from Dr. Howe!). Usually, by the end of the semester, I am glad to be done with a course. This is the first time that I honestly have not wanted it to end!

I’m going to continue to play around and experiment with my blog (like a few others, I hadn’t had a blog post prior to this semester). The task that I set for myself this morning was to figure out how to embed my final PPT presentation into the post. Initially, I could only do so by adding each slide individually as you would for a photo. That was both clunky and visually unappealing. Anyway, after a bit of experimentation, I finally figured it out!

PS. If anyone would like to embed their final presentations into their blog posts but don’t know how to, I am planning to post screenshots and quick directions, hopefully in the next day or so (right now, however, I am getting ready for the arrival of several out-of-town family members who will be in for the weekend).

More soon & thank you again to my fellow classmates!

Original Post

SRC Reflection

Glossophobia

I have enjoyed reading my classmates’ reflections on the experience of presenting at the SRC, almost as much as I enjoyed their actual presentations. I found myself chuckling along when reading their observations about the effects of nervousness, particularly as I had similar physical and emotional reactions that night. For example, I discovered that my extreme nervousness at speaking in front of an audience caused two primary physical issues while I was presenting:  the first, which I was painfully aware of at the time, was that I felt as if I was continually mispronouncing words, despite having practiced my presentation multiple times; the second was that from the moment that I began to speak, I immediately suffered from a debilitating severe case of dry mouth, which made speaking impossible quite difficult. Afterwards, Alec pointed out my rookie mistake shared his tip of taking a glass of water to the podium. In retrospect, I can’t believe that I didn’t think to do that! In any event, I will definitely file his suggestion in my mental toolbox if I ever present again for the next time that I present.

Nhu’s comment that there are always going to be “unanticipated circumstances” that arise each semester really resonated with me, particularly as I struggled with many of these myself this term  (for instance, literally starting the semester off in January with pneumonia, then having a tree fall on our house during the Nor’easter in March, and finally having my son home sick with Strep and requiring constant hands-on care for a week in April). Although these issues did not prevent me from doing extensive research for my project, I did find that both my attention span, as well as my ability to write, was nonexistent severely compromised and I continually felt (and unfortunately still do) pulled in a dozen different directions.

Tree Falls on House

(Imagine this, but without the snow!)

In his reflection, Alec made an astute comment regarding the process of preparing a presentation, specifically that the process of information selection helped in terms of “thinking more carefully about the final paper.” I, too, felt that way as I was preparing my presentation. In addition, I found the questions and comments afterwards (such as the suggestion that I look up Jeffrey Cohen’s chapter “Monster Culture (Seven Theses),” which I have now read and am working on incorporating into my argument) to be extremely valuable in helping me to identify places in my argument that I still need to expand upon and develop.

I know that I mentioned this after Victor’s Vincent’s presentation, but I have really enjoyed absolutely loved seeing his project develop this semester. In particular, the visuals that he created for his SRC presentation (specifically the texting images between Elizabeth and Victor) helped to make his proposed assignment seem much more concrete. They also reinforced for me the importance of good visuals in a formal talk and what an aid they can be.

Lastly, Ally’s enthusiasm for her project was contagious. Good presentations, like good ideas, can really inspire us as scholars to explore new areas of inquiry, and I found myself taking copious notes for a potential future project (after this semester is over!). Specifically, I’d like to use Syuzhet to graph both the 1818 and 1831 editions of Frankenstein to see whether their degrees of sentiments differ, and if so, in what ways. I can honestly say that that is NOT something that I could possibly have envisioned being willing to tackle four months ago!

In terms of how my presentation has informed the direction that my project has taken, I realized that although I had the majority of my argument worked out, I needed to find a way to explain it to others. This has helped me in my drafting process. For example, I had a slide of various descriptors that Victor Frankenstein uses when referring to the creature. When I constructed this slide, I grouped the terms thematically (i.e. listing similar terms together), but while I was presenting, I realized that for my purposes, it would be more productive to focus on how those descriptors evolve throughout the text based on plot developments (I am currently mapping this out in order to revise my argument).

One of my PPT slides

Finally, although I did not feel this way in the days leading up to the conference, I am extremely grateful that we were forced encouraged to submit our work to the SRC. Had it not been for that, I definitely most likely wouldn’t have, and thus would not have benefited from the experience of presenting. It has been over 15 years since I last presented at a conference (coincidentally, my presentation was also on Frankenstein). MU’s SRC was an excellent opportunity to dip my toes in the proverbial water again, challenge my fear of presenting (thanks to some much-needed words of encouragement and support the night before), and prepare me for future opportunities to present. Because of this, I honestly don’t think that I will be nearly as nervous or apprehensive the next time that I present at a conference. From a professional development standpoint, this truly was an invaluable experience. (865)

We survived!

Original Post

Day Eleven – SRC Reflection

In my presentation, I found to be more confident in myself, the proposal, and the PowerPoint in general which made the experience more relaxed and comfortable; moreover I was able to converse with the audience and their questions/suggestions more loosely yet focused than expected. I felt I had a better understanding and position in my proposal as I gauged the reactions from the audience itself as well. I also felt it was a wise decision to print handouts of the significant documents such as the grading rubric and the assignment proposal for the audience to review upon; I was worried that the PowerPoint was not large in font or overall size for the audience to read off.

I have, however, a repeating habit of stammering or prolonged usage of nonsensical wordings like “uh” or “um” to drag on sentences while in thought. I hope to fix this in the future for next presentations, a possible solution could be making more notes with detail explanations to browse back if necessary. Furthermore, I should also develop my PowerPoint to be more specific and provide more details or examples to illustrate my points; I felt myself diverging away and missed some key elements to my presentation and proposal.

As for the other presentations, they demonstrated the strong points of oral (or vocal) skills that I should strive for in my preceding presentations (formal or informal). Overall, I believe I benefited from this experience and enjoyed myself than expected.

Preliminary Outline for 571 Final Project

Zombie humor…

Preliminary Outline

1. Introduction –  explain and outline the scope of my project (apx. 1 page)

2.  Explanation of Kristeva’s concept of “the Abject” & its connection to Frankenstein (apx. 2-3 pages)

“The abject is not an ob-ject facing me, which I name or imagine…The abject has only one quality of the object—that of being opposed to I” (Kristeva 1).

“[W]hat is abject, on the contrary, the jettisoned object, is radically excluded and draws me toward the place_where meaning collapses. A certain ‘ego’ that merged with its master, a superego, has flatly driven it away. It lies outside, beyond the set, and does not seem to agree to the latter’s rules of the game. And yet, from its place
of banishment, the abject does not cease challenging its master. Without a sign (for him), it beseeches a discharge, a convulsion, a crying out. To each ego its object, to each superego its abject”(Kristeva 2).

“The corpse, seen without God and outside of science, is the utmost of abjection. It is death infecting life. Abject. It is something rejected from which one does not part, from which one does not protect oneself as from an object. Imaginary uncanniness and real threat, it beckons to us and ends up engulfing us” (Kristeva 4).

3.  Discussion of naming/not-naming the creature (apx. 3-4 pages)

  • Michael Ragussis – Acts of Naming: the Family Plot in Fiction
  • Illegitimacy aspect
  • Gothic Double (Victor Frankenstein & the creature)

4.  Brief summary of main differences between 1818 & 1831 editions (apx. 2 pages)

  • Anne Mellor “Revising Frankenstein”

5.  Explanation of DH tool (most likely just Juxta Commons, but possibly Voyan’s Text in Context tool). Comparison of Shelley’s description of the creature in key scenes (still to be finalized, but I’ve identified numerous places in the text to consider); this section will include graphs from Juxta with detailed analysis/explanation and ideally, 3-4 comparisons/examples  (apx. 5-6 pages)

6.  Discussion of TEI and naming (this will be the final section of my project and time permitting, will be included. However, it is what I feel the least confident about right now, and I am still working out how/what to say in this section) (apx. 1 page)

7.  Conclusion – include questions and/or ideas for future development (apx. 1 page)

8.  Bibliography/Works Cited

Note:  Current anticipated scope is apx. 15-18 pages

Unfortunately, how I feel at the moment…

Original Post

Day Ten – Proposal Outline

Working Thesis:

The thesis for this project-proposal is to examine the creativity of digital humanities and their activities within a school setting. Can digital humanities rely on creativity as much as other English courses and if so, where it the evidence to suggest that in recent years? Why are there seemingly few sources that have the two subjects (digital humanities and creative writing or creativity) in the same source? Could creative writing benefit or negate the progress of digital humanities? This project-proposal will propose an ideal student-activity within a high-school setting, examining Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as an English subject and utilize digital sources, tools, and pedagogy.

Outline of Proposal-Draft

  • The Topic (1 Paragraph Drafted)
    – Elaborate on thesis
    = The creativity of digital humanities
    = Propose an ideal student-activity within a high-school setting,
    = Examine Frankenstein as an English subject
    = Utilize digital sources and tools.
  • The Context (1 Paragraph Drafted)
    – Creativity
    = Definition
    = Dialogue-Script (as example)
    -Digital Humanities
    = Definition
    = Social Media Networks (as example)
    Frankenstein
    = Synopsis/History
    -Student-body
    = Intended Audience (The Why?)
  • The Contribution (1 Paragraph Drafted)
    – Digital Humanities vs Creative Writing
    = Separation
    = Integration
    – Student Engagement
    – Effect of Social Media
  • The Methods (3-4 Paragraphs Drafted)
    – Activity Paper
    – Activity Rubric
    – Demonstration/Example of Activity
  • The Sources
    – Bibliography

The Challenges of Continued Research…

“The Angel of Destiny” by Odilon Redon

“To bestow, find, reveal, or earn a name; to take away, hide, or prohibit a name…such acts are the means and ends of the characters in fiction, and as such lay bare a novel’s deepest levels of plot.”

~Michael Ragussis

In continuing to develop my project over the past few weeks, I have found myself at both a literal and figurative impasse: I am still grappling with and exploring the fundamental (foundational?) question of why Mary Shelley chose to leave the creature in Frankenstein nameless. I have realized, however, that my attention has been misplaced, and should instead be on the effect that the creature’s namelessness has on our reading of the text.

Ironically, my recent research has caused me to (at least initially) widen the scope of my focus, which on one hand has been a bit overwhelming, but on the other hand, has allowed me to more precisely tease out my research question. My recent readings have included several new articles and book chapters (see additional sources below) on Julia Kristeva’s concept of the “abject,” the issue of naming in literature, gothic literature as a genre, and lastly, the specificity of the “female gothic.”

With those topics in mind, the following briefly summarizes my current thoughts about the question of naming (or not-naming) in Frankenstein. Specifically, the creature’s lack of a name serves two purposes:

1) It situates him as “illegitimate” within the text, both in the literal sense of his parentage and in the figurative sense of his relationship to society.

2) It positions his character as a gothic double for Victor Frankenstein.

I am still working on developing the latter, but this mirroring/doubling can be seen not only in Victor’s and the creature’s relationships with each other, but through their interactions with other characters, and with their respective actions throughout the novel. However, both possibilities refer back to the ontological paradox of whether something can have an identity if it does not have (or rather is denied) a name, which ties into the portion of my project that focuses on the issue of TEI and name coding a character.

In addition to the supplemental theoretical reading and research that I am doing, I’m also currently reading the 1831 edition of the text, in particular with an eye on comparing Shelley’s descriptions of the creature with those that she made in the 1818 text. While I have found much that has been written on the differences between the two texts (largely, on the characters of Elizabeth Lavenza, Victor Frankenstein, and Henry Clerval, as well as on the biographical events in Mary Shelley’s life that largely informed her revisions to the latter edition), I have yet to come across anything that examines the ways in which the portrayal of the creature changes (or does not change) from the earlier to later text. I am also currently using Juxta to assist with this close textual reading and comparison, but may also use the Keywords in Context tool in Voyant to help with this as well (I’ve been experimenting with both to see which would better suit my purposes).

My plan is to be done with my research this weekend and begin drafting my project immediately afterwards. My outline will follow in my next blog post!  (547)

Additional Sources:

“Approaching Abjection.” Powers of Horror: an Essay on Abjection, by Julia Kristeva, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 1–31.

“Abjection in Literature.” Abjection and Representation: an Exploration of Abjection in the Visual Arts, Film and Literature, by Rina Arya, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 156–188.

Davison, Carol Margaret. “The Female Gothic.” History of the Gothic: Gothic Literature 1764-1824, 1st ed., University of Wales Press, 2009, pp. 83–110. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qhhjn.9.

Kilgour, Maggie. The Rise of the Gothic Novel. Routledge, 1995.

Ragussis, Michael. “Introduction: In the Name of the Child.” Acts of Naming: the Family Plot in Fiction, Oxford, 1986, pp. 3–16.

Original Post

Day Nine – Final Project Draft

The thesis for this project-proposal is to examine the creativity of digital humanities and their activities within a school setting. Do digital humanities rely on creativity as much as other English courses and if so, where is the evidence to suggest that in recent years? Why are there seemingly few sources that have the two subjects (digital humanities and creative writing or creativity) in the same source? Could creative writing benefit or negate the progress of digital humanities? This project-proposal will propose a constructed, ideal class within a high-school setting, examining Frankenstein as an English subject and utilize digital sources and tools. Specifically, this class will also utilize creative-writing in most of the assignments for digital humanities such as a group project.

As presented in Battershill and Ross’s academic writing on designing classroom, activities can serve as exploration but require balancing integration and flexibility. As described in their textbook, “creative exploration in classroom activities is nothing new for instructors… the digital humanities offer new compasses and maps for such exploration” (Battershill, Ross, pg. 80). It is essential to be flexible with teaching and learning and thus instructors must find ways to integrate digital humanities (the teaching of digital tools) into a new generation. At the same time, the instructor must find ways to allow this exploration with students and their learning by creating the opportunity to see these old classics (Frankenstein) in a present-age setting and view. I would utilize these examples of classroom activity design (such as ‘character role-play or debate’ for example) but combine elements of creative writing to see how students react and display their results and findings to the classroom. Furthermore, it would be interesting to test the capabilities of the new student body as well as their adaptability with new technology in the digital age. To that end, I’ve come to the theory that activities for digital humanities can begin at the earliest stages before college. I’ve reached the position and idea that speculates that creative writing could be conducted through digital humanities and I would like to examine how such a relationship could benefit the classroom. If proven accurate, these modified digital activities for humanities could benefit the student’s learning of both technical and creative writing.

The contribution of this proposal could provide not only insight on the integration between creative writing and digital humanities, often viewed as two different areas of skill and thought (like fiction and non-fiction) but provide a glimpse of student engagement and the effect of social media of students as well. In recent years, there has been some research suggesting that student engagement has decreased over some time; suggested by Rajaratnam’s Themes and Patterns Explored in the Decline of Student Engagement: An Exploratory Case Study. Naturally, this would be an issue for teachers and students alike in education and the retainment of learning in all levels of schools. If students are detached from their learning environment, it has negative consequences on the student’s long-term future as well as the integrity of those schools. Furthermore, teachers should be supporting students to engage with others as well as their lessons, adding to these negative effects. These teachers are supposed to be mentors as well as supporting role models to their students. Some engagement, however, should be monitored by teachers as well. If left unchecked, students could engage with one another in a manner that could be classified as bullying (cyber or in-person) which should be avoided at all cost. For these reasons, it may prove fruitful for teachers to utilize creativity and engagement in groups while undergoing digital humanities to spark interaction that is safe and positive for all. To require the students to participate in groups creates the opportunity for personal development and create relationship with other group-members. To use creativity, the students create a positive learning experience and environment, and to express themselves to the group and class in an acceptable manner. It can also provide an opportunity for students to explore story-telling (or creative writing) at an earlier age.

If accepted, this proposal would develop a full lesson-plan designed to incorporate the two subjects, digital humanities with creative writing. The thesis of the project would be based upon the idea of creating a syllabus (or rubric of activities) planned out for this ideal class in theory. For the duration of this project, however, the proposal would only examine and record the results of one of the assignments. In this case, I wanted the project to employ a group project into this ideal class, digital activities utilizing creative writing by examining Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In this group project, I would essentially have groups of two or three high-school students work together in writing a script of dialogue that would serve as a hypothetical addition to the story of Frankenstein; using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social networking program. The students would role-play through a message-board or “text-messages” between characters. The characters would be engaged in an argument over being revived from the dead. As such, Victor (or “Victoria”) Frankenstein would be essential and one of the students in the group would have to play the role. A second member of the group would play the “revived” character by Dr. Frankenstein’s hand. The third member of the group could be the supporting character that would assist the group’s argument further. Together, the group would all have to be involved in the formation of the project, argument of the characters, and presentation of their findings and perspectives. As a result, this project would utilize creative writing through the dialogue script, and the project can display basic storytelling by exploring a possible variant of the original story of Frankenstein. The assignment would require using The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein as a template to how to present another perspective of a character other than simply Victor Frankenstein or the Creature for example. This would only be one of the activities that I’d plan and observe, implemented into the syllabus to be used in a real-life high-school English class.

The sources that I’ve chosen for this thesis and proposal are deprived from studies that examine creativity (or creative writing specifically) in academics or examine creativity in part of digital humanities now. I also intend to use common sources of Frankenstein for my main focus for the students while a more recent novel reflecting on a minor character (Elizabeth Frankenstein) as a secondary source called The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein. This would allow students to see how a different perspective can affect the understanding of a story as it is being told or otherwise experience from another character (other than Victor Frankenstein or the Creature). There would be referencing studies of digital humanities within the classroom to complete my understanding and develop the thesis as well. Furthermore, those sources of digital humanities in teaching would help develop the project and thus the activity itself. As expected, the activity would use social media networking sources of the student’s choice like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or others

In the next pages, this proposal will showcase the activity as well as the grading rubic for the activity as revised:

 

English 101
Mr. Faiella
ENGL Project
03/30/18

Which Character Would Dr. Frankenstein Revive Next?

Objective:
To understand Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, this assignment will require a group of two or three students to work together and role-play as Victor (or “Victoria”) Frankenstein along with any supporting characters of their choice. It is the present-age, Dr. Frankenstein has revived one of the other characters (Elizabeth, Justine, Henry, etc.) and a discussion is taking place over a social media network (Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, etc.). Consider these questions…

  • Who did you choose and why?
  • What are they saying?
  • What are their reactions?
  • What is the impact on the story?

Instructions:
Each group-member will represent a character in a public discussion over a social media network. Each group will be required to submit their scripts of dialogue to the teacher for approval, only relevant and appropriate language will be used for the project. Once approved, the group will be given until the date of presentation to revise and construct a presentation for the class. You will be graded on several different factors, provided on the grading rubric but it will be in font size of 12’ under Times New Roman of at least five (5) pages for the essay portion.

For optional extra-credit, you may provide visuals to go along with the presentation. For example, you could provide images (or “photos”) with each message or piece of dialogue to illustrate the conversation between characters with in-depth immersion into character. These extra-credits will be judged and administered by the teacher in addition to the final grade.

Schedule:

05/02 – selection of group members; followed by group discussion

05/04 – group discussion; work on script of dialogue

05/09 – submission of script to teacher prior to presentation

05/18 – presentation

05/21 – grades

Please talk to the teacher for any questions or concerns, and enjoy the activity.

 

 

Rubric and Grade Sheet

  Above Average
(25 points)
Slightly Above
(20 points)
Average
(15 points)
Slightly Below
(10 points)
Below Average
(5 – 0 points)
Character Role-Play: Taken the character’s personality completely, Taken the character’s personality with precise examination Taken the character’s personality with moderate emphasis on performance Taken the character’s personality but with little clarity and lacked conviction Taken the character’s personality with little to no understanding of the character
Effect on Frankenstein: Anticipated how the story would change completely by the character’s revival Anticipated how the strong of a change with an interesting, original theory Demonstrated how the story may change partially, taking few aspects into account Demonstrated how the story may change but lacks strong connection or reasoning Guessed little to no change to the story by the character’s revival with no evidence or reasoning
Dialogue: Exchanged with authenticity in speech while improvising present-age language Spoken with authenticity in speech but lacked some improvising or melding Exchanged between characters through lacked in smooth interaction Spoken with minor infractions in character, improperly strung together Little to no effort made into the speech between characters or not approved by teacher
Presentation Engaged with the audience, explained their group project with clarity and distinction Engaged with the audience and explained their group project but left minor details or caused errors Presented in an agreeable manner through lacked some group participation The group had trouble presentation, little to no effort in working together The group made little to no effort in presenting their project, weak communication
Essay:
(common grammar, spelling, vocabulary, page-count, etc.):
Well written, detailed. Exceed the requirements and the least amount of errors Written with strong points. Met the most requirements and a few minor errors A typical explanation. Met the average requirements and some errors Lacking in reasoning. Met the bare minimum requirements with more errors than expected Written with little to no explanation. Met the least number of requirements with numerous errors

 

Name: ________________________

Final Grade: _____ out of 125 points

Comments:

Bibliography

Battershill, Claire, and Ross, Shawna. Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom: A Practical

Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers and Students. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.

Bissonette, Melissa B. “Teaching the Monster: Frankenstein and Critical Thinking.” College

Literature, vol. 37, no. 3, 2010, pp. 106-0_9, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/742631726?accountid=27975

Dalbello, Marija. “A Genealogy of Digital Humanities.” Journal of Documentation, vol. 67, no.

3, 2011, pp. 480-506, ProQuest, http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-

proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/864087852?accountid=27975,doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy

mu.wrlc.org/10.1108/00220411111124550

Fan, Lai-Tze. “”Efficient” Creativity and the Residue of the Humanities.” English Studies in

Canada, vol. 40, no. 2, 2014, pp. 19-24, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1658887109?accountid=27975

Freese, Stephanie F. The Relationship between Teacher Caring and Student Engagement in

Academic High School Classes, Hofstra University, Ann Arbor, 1999, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/304505672?accountid=27975

Koehler, Adam. Composition, Creative Writing Studies and the Digital Humanities. Bloomsbury

Academic, 2017.

Macdonald, D.L., Scherf, Kathleen, ed. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. By Mary

Wollstonecraft Shelley. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Editions, 2012.

Matsunaga, Bruce. Romantic Cyber-Engagement Three Digital Humanities Projects in

Romanticism, Arizona State University, Ann Arbor, 2013, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1353391389?accountid=27975

McVey, David. “Why all Writing is Creative Writing.” Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, vol. 45, no. 3, 2008, pp. 289-294, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/210673934?accountid=27975

O’Neill, ,C.E. “Composition, Creative Writing Studies, and the Digital Humanities.” Choice, vol.

54, no. 11, 2017, pp. 1633, ProQuest, http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-

proquest-com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1915872176?accountid=27975

Rajaratnam, Ravi. Themes and Patterns Explored in the Decline of Student Engagement: An

 

Exploratory Case Study, The University of the Rockies, Ann Arbor, 2018, ProQuest,

 

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/2014465024?accountid=27975

 

Roszak, Theodore. The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Bantam Books, 1996.

 

Siemens, Raymond George, and Susan Schreibman. A Companion to Digital Literary Studies.

 

Wiley-Blackwell, 2013

 

Vanderslice, Stephanie. “Beyond the Tipping Point: Creative Writing Comes of Age.” College

English, vol. 78, no. 6, 2016, pp. 602-613, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1799924542?accountid=27975


Project Proposal – Draft

“The Nameless Mode of Naming the Unnameable”: (Un)coding the Non-human in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

For centuries, philosophers have grappled with the ontological issue of what it means to be human. In her seminal novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley examines and challenges this very question. Shelley’s protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, endeavors to artificially create life, however, at the very moment of animation, he vehemently rejects his creation. Instead of being elated by his success, he is immediately repulsed by the “demoniacal corpse.” His rejection of the creature at that moment, which is continued throughout the remainder of the novel, functions as the catalyst for the creature’s subsequent violent and murderous actions.

Frontispiece of the 1831 edition of “Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus” (British Library)

Much like both the creature’s fragmented body and the novel’s corresponding narrative bricolage, my project consists of multiple parts. The first part will focus on Shelley’s textual descriptions of the creature in the 1818 edition of the novel. I will examine how her decision to leave this character unnamed, instead referring to him throughout the text by various sub-human descriptors such as “dæmon,” “animal,” and “fiend,” reinforces the binary division between human and nonhuman.

The second part of my project will focus on how Shelley’s literary treatment of the creature evolved between the 1818 edition and the later 1831 published text. While I recognize that this type of a comparison could potentially expand to a much larger project, I plan to narrowly focus my examination on Shelley’s descriptions of the creature by conducting a variant analysis of the two texts using Juxta Commons. For my witnesses, I will use the existing online texts of the 1818 and 1831 editions edited by Stuart Curran.

Image of sample variant analysis on Juxta Commons

The third and final part of my project will conclude by further exploring the binary distinction that Shelley created between human and non-human, but will be situated in the larger realm of digital humanities. Specifically, I plan to examine the challenge that “naming the unnameable” creates when attempting to code the character of Frankenstein’s monster in a current digitization project.

While the scholarly body of work on Frankenstein is expansive, both in terms of the depth and breadth of previous academic explorations, based on the research that I have done thus far, I have not found any similar projects with my specific focus (though I hope that as I continue to work on this project, I will find some other examples on which to base or model my work). The two primary questions that I plan to explore in my final project are:  What issues arise by the naming, or not naming, of the creature, both in terms of computer programming and in literary analysis? What does that tell us about how we as readers and as scholars make the distinction between human and the ‘other’?

(478)

Bibliography

“Articulating the Abstract: Theories of the Unnameable.” The Unnameable Monster in Literature and Film, by Maria Beville. Routledge, 2013, pp. 51–69.

Burnard, Lou. What is the Text Encoding Initiative? How to Add Intelligent Markup to Digital Resources. Marseille: Open Edition Press, 2014. Web. <http://books.openedition.org/oep/426>.

Carroll, Noel. “The Nature of Horror.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 46, no. 1, 1987, pp. 51–59.

Cummings, James. “The Text Encoding Initiative and the Study of Literature.” A Companion to Digital Literary Studies, edited by Ray Siemens and Susan Schreibman. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008, www.digitalhumanities.org/companionDLS/.

Duyfhuizen, Bernard. “Periphrastic Naming in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 27, no. 4, 1 Dec. 1995, pp. 477–492.

Hockey, Susan M. Electronic Texts in the Humanities: Principles and Practice. Oxford University Press, 2001.

“Frankenstein and the Unnameable.” Gothic Fiction/Gothic Form, by George E. Haggerty. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989, pp. 37–63.

“A Gentle Introduction to XML – The TEI Guidelines.” P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, TEI Consortium, 31 Jan. 2018, www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/SG.html.

McGann, Jerome. “Marking Texts of Many Dimensions.” Edited by Susan Schreibman et al., A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, www.digitalhumanities.org/companion.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Edited by Stuart Curran, Romantic Circles, University of Maryland, 1 May 2009, www.rc.umd.edu/editions/frankenstein.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf, 3rd ed., Broadview Editions, 2012. Print.

Original Post

Day Eight – Final Project Proposal

Creativity in Activities of Digital Humanities

This project will propose a constructed, ideal class within a high-school setting, examining Frankenstein as an English subject and utilize digital sources and tools. Specifically, this class will also utilize creative-writing in most of the assignments for digital humanities such as a final group project.

As presented in Battershill and Ross’s academic writing on designing classroom, activities can serve as exploration but require balancing integration and flexibility. As described in their textbook, “creative exploration in classroom activities is nothing new for instructors… the digital humanities offer new compasses and maps for such exploration” (Battershill, Ross, pg. 80). I would utilize these examples of classroom activity design (such as ‘character role-play or debate’ for example) but combine elements of creative writing to see how students react and display their results and findings to the classroom.

To that end, I’ve come to the theory that activities for digital humanities can begin at the earliest stages before college by using a more common subject of humanities (or English). I’ve reached the position and idea that speculates that creative writing could be conducted through digital humanities and I would like to examine how such a relationship could benefit the classroom. If proven accurate, these modified digital activities for humanities could benefit the student’s learning of both technical and creative writing.

The methodology would be from the syllabus (or sequence of activities) planned out for this ideal class. Primarily, however, I wanted the project to focus on a final group project that would be theorized as the clearest example of my reasoning, digital activities utilizing creative writing by examining Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In this final group project, I would essentially have groups of three or more students work together in writing a “chapter” that would serve as a hypothetical addition to the story of Frankenstein. The assignment would require using The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein as a template to how to present another perspective of a character for example.

The sources that I’ve chosen for this thesis and proposal are deprived from studies that examine creativity (or creative writing specifically) in academics or examine creativity in part of digital humanities now. I also intend to use common sources of Frankenstein for my main focus for the students while a more recent novel reflecting on a minor character (Elizabeth Frankenstein) as a secondary source. There would be referencing studies of digital humanities within the classroom to complete my understanding and develop the thesis as well.

 

Bibliography

Battershill, Claire, and Ross, Shawna. Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom: A Practical

Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers and Students. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.

Dalbello, Marija. “A Genealogy of Digital Humanities.” Journal of Documentation, vol. 67, no.

3, 2011, pp. 480-506, ProQuest, http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-

proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/864087852?accountid=27975,doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy

mu.wrlc.org/10.1108/00220411111124550

Fan, Lai-Tze. “”Efficient” Creativity and the Residue of the Humanities.” English Studies in

Canada, vol. 40, no. 2, 2014, pp. 19-24, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1658887109?accountid=27975.

Macdonald, D.L., Scherf, Kathleen, ed. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. By Mary

Wollstonecraft Shelley. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Editions, 2012.

Mandell, Laura. “William Blake and the Digital Humanities: Collaboration, Participation, and

Social Media.” Studies in Romanticism, vol. 53, no. 1, 2014, pp. 133-146, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1549544530?accountid=27975

McVey, David. “Why all Writing is Creative Writing.” Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, vol. 45, no. 3, 2008, pp. 289-294, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/210673934?accountid=27975

O’Neill, ,C.E. “Composition, Creative Writing Studies, and the Digital Humanities.” Choice, vol.

54, no. 11, 2017, pp. 1633, ProQuest, http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-

proquest-com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1915872176?accountid=27975

Roszak, Theodore. The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Bantam Books, 1996.

 

Vanderslice, Stephanie. “Beyond the Tipping Point: Creative Writing Comes of Age.” College

English, vol. 78, no. 6, 2016, pp. 602-613, ProQuest,

http://proxymu.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxymu.wrlc.org/docview/1799924542?accountid=27975

———————————————————————————————————-

Project Proposal