The apparent contrast in both pieces of writing broadens the difficulty of locating the similarities needed to properly contrast and compare both reviews. However, disregarding the distinct different elements, both works are descriptive in their use of diction. Elevated and sophisticated, passage one utilizes works such as “piously,” and, “dubiously,” to enhance the quality of writing. In comparison, passage two incorporates a variety of scientific terms, such as physiological and specimen in order to legitimize the scientific themes found in Frankenstein.
Regarding diction, descriptive words in passage one provided the reader with an image. With sentences such as “dies of cold, fatigue, horror,” the reader can visualize the harshness of the text while feeling a certain aura of horror. Another example would be in line 16, when the author for passage one writes, “tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity.” The use of descriptive negatives is balanced so that the sentence enhances the true grotesque themes found in Frankenstein. In conjunction with descriptive diction, the author for passage one includes himself with his/her audience by continually referring to his ideas with we. His repetition of the world we, as seen in the passage as “we conjecture” or “we have thus,” symbols unity amongst the readers and the author. In contrast, passage two the author posses the ability of rhetoric as he indentifies with parallelism. The repeating words, “I shall,” shows the audience that the author strategically organized the piece so that the main points was repeated throughout the paragraph. Unlike passage one, the second text of literature directly addresses his audience with the informality of repeating I. Strategies such as parallelism were used in the first piece, the Quarterly review, as well. The anonymous piece utilized the strategy of anti-thesis by directly contrasting two objects in the same sentence. For example, “Burn himself...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document