From Literary Theory to Critical Practice
Literary Criticism and Gen AI: Reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Through Four Critical Lenses
Introduction
Literary criticism helps us understand a literary text from different perspectives. A single literary work can contain questions about class, gender, power, nature, identity, society and human relationships. Therefore, a text does not always have only one meaning. Different critical approaches can make different aspects of the same text visible.
In this activity, I explored four approaches to literary criticism: Marxist Criticism, Feminist/Gender Criticism, Ecocriticism, and Queer Criticism. The purpose was not simply to learn the definitions of these theories. The main purpose was to understand what a critic actually does while applying a theory to a literary text.
For this activity, I selected Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. The novel is suitable for this activity because it raises questions about social exclusion, gender, scientific ambition, nature, identity, power and social norms. The source material on Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical and Queer Criticism also specifically discusses Frankenstein in relation to Ecocriticism.
Step 1: Understanding the Four Critical Lenses
The first step of the activity asks us to understand what each critic looks for, what the critic does with the text, a concrete illustration, and a question that the critic might ask. The worksheet emphasizes that literary theory should not be reduced to simple slogans. For example, Marxism is not only about “rich versus poor,” Feminism is not simply about “women,” and Ecocriticism is not only about descriptions of nature. Each theory has particular concepts and methods that guide interpretation.
The four approaches can be understood as four different critical lenses. Each lens directs our attention towards a particular set of questions and relationships.
Comparative Understanding of the Four Approaches
The four approaches therefore do different kinds of critical work. Marxist Criticism asks questions about class and power. Feminist/Gender Criticism examines gender, patriarchy and agency. Ecocriticism considers human relationships with nature. Queer Criticism examines identity, normality and boundaries. The source material explains these approaches through concepts such as class struggle, patriarchy, anthropocentrism, heteronormativity and gender construction.
What Is the Difference Between Knowing a Critical Theory and Actually Using It?
Knowing a literary theory means understanding its basic concepts and terminology. For example, a student may know that Marxist Criticism deals with class and ideology, Feminist Criticism deals with patriarchy and gender inequality, Ecocriticism deals with human–nature relationships, and Queer Criticism examines sexuality, identity and ideas of normality.
However, using a theory means applying these concepts to actual details in a literary text. A critic does not simply say that a novel is “Marxist” or “feminist.” Instead, the critic identifies textual evidence, asks critical questions and explains how particular characters, events, relationships or situations reveal larger social structures.
For example, instead of simply saying that Frankenstein can be read through Ecocriticism, we can examine Victor’s attempt to control the natural process of creating life. Similarly, instead of simply calling the novel Feminist, we can examine the representation of female characters and Victor’s control over reproduction. In this way, theory becomes a method of reading rather than a collection of definitions. The worksheet specifically asks students to understand this difference.
Step 2: Applying the Four Critical Lenses to Frankenstein
The second step requires applying all four critical approaches to one literary text. The purpose is not to write four general summaries of the theories. Instead, we must act as four different critics and examine textual evidence through each particular lens.
1. Marxist Reading of Frankenstein
A Marxist reading focuses on class, social hierarchy, privilege, economic conditions and systems of power.
Victor Frankenstein belongs to a privileged social background. He receives education and has access to scientific knowledge and resources. The Creature, in contrast, begins life without family, property, social position or economic security. His lack of social status contributes to his exclusion from society.
The De Lacey family also provides an important example. Their experience of poverty and displacement shows how social and material conditions can affect people’s lives. The Creature learns about society partly by observing this family. Through them, he becomes aware of relationships, labour, poverty and social differences.
Justine can also be considered from a Marxist perspective because her position as a servant makes her vulnerable to the authority of others. Her social position affects how she is treated by the legal and social system.
A Marxist reading therefore makes us see that the Creature’s suffering is not only connected with his physical appearance. His lack of social power and acceptance also contributes to his isolation. The reading brings attention to privilege, social hierarchy, exclusion and institutional power.
2. Feminist/Gender Reading of Frankenstein
A Feminist/Gender reading examines the representation of women, patriarchy, gender roles and women’s agency.
The novel contains several female characters, including Elizabeth Lavenza, Caroline Beaufort, Justine Moritz and Safie. These women are important to the story, but their lives are strongly influenced by family structures, social expectations and male authority.
Elizabeth is connected with the domestic and emotional world of Victor’s family. Justine becomes vulnerable within a social and legal system dominated by authority. Safie’s story also raises questions about women’s freedom and social expectations.
One of the most important gender-related issues is Victor’s creation of life without the participation of a woman. Traditionally, reproduction involves both male and female bodies. Victor attempts to take control of this process through science. Later, when the Creature asks him to create a female companion, Victor initially agrees but then destroys the female Creature before completing her.
This event can be read as a question about male authority over creation and reproduction. A Feminist/Gender reading therefore makes visible the relationship between scientific power, gender roles, women’s agency and patriarchal control.
3. Ecocritical Reading of Frankenstein
Ecocriticism examines the relationship between human beings and the natural world. It questions anthropocentrism, or the belief that human beings have the right to dominate nature.
This approach is particularly relevant to Frankenstein. The supporting critical source itself discusses the novel through Ecocriticism. It interprets Victor’s attempt to create life as an attempt to control or “conquer” a process associated with nature. His scientific ambition produces serious ethical consequences.
Nature is also important throughout the novel. Mountains, forests, lakes and other landscapes are not merely decorative backgrounds. They often provide emotional relief and a sense of freedom. The Creature, who is rejected by human society, develops a close relationship with the natural environment.
Victor’s scientific ambition can therefore be considered in relation to the limits of human control. He attempts to cross a natural boundary, but the result is suffering for himself, the Creature and others.
The Ecocritical reading makes visible the tension between scientific progress and ethical responsibility, as well as the relationship between human ambition and the natural world.
4. Queer Reading of Frankenstein
A Queer reading examines ideas about identity, normality, gender boundaries and categories that society considers acceptable.
It is important to use this approach carefully. Frankenstein does not explicitly present LGBTQ+ identity in the modern sense. Therefore, the novel should not simply be described as a queer text. Instead, Queer Criticism can be used as a lens for questioning how the novel constructs ideas of normal and abnormal identity.
The Creature exists outside accepted categories. He is neither easily accepted as an ordinary human being nor understood by society. His appearance makes people immediately classify him as different and unacceptable.
Victor’s creation also challenges conventional ideas about reproduction and the boundaries between human and non-human life. He creates life through scientific experimentation rather than through ordinary human reproduction. The proposed creation of a female companion creates another challenge to traditional ideas about gender and reproduction.
Through this lens, we can ask who has the authority to decide what is “normal,” “natural” or “acceptable.” The Queer reading therefore highlights identity, social exclusion, boundaries and the construction of normality.
What Becomes Visible When the Same Text Is Viewed Through Four Different Critical Lenses?
Reading Frankenstein through four critical lenses demonstrates that a literary text can produce different meanings depending on the questions we ask.
The Marxist lens makes class, privilege, social exclusion and power more visible. The Feminist/Gender lens draws attention to women’s agency, patriarchy, gender roles and reproductive power. The Ecocritical lens focuses on Victor’s relationship with nature and the ethical problems of attempting to control natural processes. The Queer lens raises questions about identity, normality and the boundaries between accepted and rejected forms of existence.
These approaches do not necessarily cancel one another. Instead, they can work together. The same character or event can be understood differently depending on the critical question being asked. This is why literary criticism is not simply about finding one “correct” meaning. It is about developing informed interpretations through evidence and theoretical concepts.
Step 3: Human Verification
GenAI can produce useful interpretations, but its responses must be checked by the student. The worksheet specifically asks students to verify the source, avoid invented evidence and distinguish between textual evidence and interpretation.
In this activity, the Ecocritical interpretation has strong support from the source material because Frankenstein is directly discussed through Ecocriticism.
The Marxist reading also needs to be more complex than simply saying that some characters are rich and others are poor. It should consider social power, privilege, exclusion and institutional structures.
Similarly, Feminist Criticism should not be reduced to “the study of women.” It should consider patriarchy, agency, gender roles and control over reproduction.
The Queer reading requires the most careful qualification. Since Frankenstein does not explicitly present modern LGBTQ+ identities, the analysis should focus on questions of normality, identity, boundaries and social exclusion rather than making unsupported claims.
This verification process demonstrates that GenAI can provide possible interpretations, but the student must check whether those interpretations are supported by the original text.
My Reflection
GenAI helped me understand that knowing a literary theory and actually using it are two different things. Before this activity, I understood the basic definitions of Marxism, Feminism, Ecocriticism and Queer Theory, but I mainly understood them as theoretical concepts. The activity showed me how a critic uses these theories to ask specific questions about a literary text.
While reading Frankenstein, I learned that the same character or event can become meaningful in different ways depending on the critical lens. For example, the Creature can be studied through class and exclusion in a Marxist reading, through identity and social norms in a Queer reading, and through the human–nature relationship in an Ecocritical reading.
One important insight I learned from GenAI was that critical theory is a method of asking questions rather than simply a collection of definitions. However, I also learned that AI responses must be checked carefully. I had to question the possibility of making the Queer reading too direct because Frankenstein does not explicitly present a queer identity. This verification taught me that AI can help generate interpretations, but the student must return to the original text and decide whether the interpretation is actually supported by evidence.
Overall, GenAI made literary criticism more practical, but it also showed me the importance of human judgment, close reading and textual verification.
Conclusion
This activity changed my understanding of literary criticism. Instead of seeing theory as something to memorize for an examination, I now understand it as a set of tools for asking deeper questions about literature.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein demonstrates how one literary text can reveal different meanings when examined through Marxist, Feminist/Gender, Ecocritical and Queer perspectives. Each approach brings certain aspects of the text into focus while making other aspects less central.
Most importantly, the activity showed me that GenAI can assist literary study, but it should not replace the reader’s responsibility. AI can suggest patterns and interpretations, but the student must verify the evidence, question unsupported claims and return to the original literary text.
For me, the most valuable lesson is that literary criticism begins not with accepting an interpretation, but with learning how to ask better questions of a text. GenAI can therefore become a useful learning assistant when it is combined with close reading, source verification and human critical thinking.
Comments
Post a Comment