Abstract
The intent of this thesis is to evaluate how a product of reader-response can be useful as a tool for critical analysis of the literary work it initially was a response to. By reading Frankenstein as the result of reader-response to Paradise Lost, I aim to discover what Shelley’s reader-response tells us about Paradise Lost. In the introductory part of the thesis, the context of and for reception in the Romantic period is presented with attention to the works of literary critic Lucy Newlyn, as well as an overview of the field of reader-response theory with special regards to criticism by Stanley Fish. Paradise Lost has created a lot of disagreements and discussions among readers and critics through time, and I make the claim that the topic of John Milton’s theodicy, alongside the problematic notion of God versus Satan, has and will always be the topic most argued and contested. As such, the thesis explores the two camps of Milton criticism, focusing on God’s omniscience, the Free Will doctrine, and the problem of Evil. The result is a presentation of how both camps argue their case for Milton’s theodicy. Author’s intent is disregarded for reading Paradise Lost due to reader-response theory, but the epic voice’s words of intent (Milton 1.26), become the reasonable starting point for the entire discussion into theodicy, and God versus Satan. From the epic voice’s intention, throughout the poem and all the literary criticism, Frankenstein is used as the closer. There is no denying that Frankenstein is influenced by Paradise Lost, but I intend to classify in what sense and to what degree. Finally, the task of this thesis is to show why we should, and how we can, use Mary Shelley’s reader-response Frankenstein to re-read Paradise Lost.