Jump to content

Talk:Mary Shelley/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Cutting page size

I think we need to rewrite the "Fiction" section - we need to discuss the novels as a group rather than individually. I think Frankenstein should have its own subsection, but the rest should only be discussed as examples of larger themes within Shelley's oeuvre. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have no choice but to look that in the (wipes tear from the corner of) eye. The obvious unifying theme that occurs to me is political liberalism/radicalism. Recent commentary seems to find this in all the books, and we could then move into a summary of gender themes. Another recurrent aspect may be autobiographical themes and portraits: for example, the dominating father figure and the poetical hero.
The danger is that we give a false impression of homogeneity, since the novels are also quite distinctive. Lodore and Falkner are certainly of a type (more domestic than the others, and the prose reads similarly in both), and the two historical novels have much in common—but Matilda (incest) and The Last Man (apocalypse, futurism) are also idiosyncratic in many ways. Unfortunately, most of the material I read about the novels was from dedicated articles or introductions, where the emphasis was on one novel at a time: so we need to find sources that speak more generally about her work. Another danger that strikes me is that of ending up with a group of little grey ducklings swimming along next to a big mother duck called Frankenstein and that we give short shrift to Mary Shelley's overall body of work, confirming the stereotyped view of her. qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, after having done Anna Laetitia Barbauld and advising Scartol on Balzac, I think that we are bound to loose nuance no matter what we do. There is no way to represent a writer's oeuvre with any precision. I am sure that I am not bursting any bubbles when I say that our little paragraphs on the novels are hardly nuanced representations of the works anyway. I think that four or five paragraphs on the "other" novels will have to do. Frankenstein has received so much more attention that I think we have to give it its own subsection. Looking at the Cambridge Companion's coverage of Frankenstein in comparison to the other works, for example, demonstrates how much more important that novel is considered than the others. A quick survey of the scholarship would demonstrate this to anyone. Also, I think that our efforts to explain her short stories, biographies, and editorial work help to challenge the stereotyped, and dying, view of her as a one-book author. Here are some of my ideas of themes that need to be included: (I think that Blumberg, Clemit, and Mellor will help with the sourcing. I am in a recall-war with someone over those books right now.)
  • liberal vs. conservative narrative
  • women and history (e.g. private narratives trump public narratives)
  • challenge to traditional Romanticism (e.g. challenge to Romantic individualism, Romantic imagination)
  • power of domesticity
  • father-daughter motif

I think we should work on this list for a while and then rewrite the "Fiction" section. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I agree with the above themes, except I don't really get the Romanticism one, which could become a bit complicated. And should we have a section on genre? (I know that's complicated too.) qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand the Romanticism bit, so I'll try to explain it. We'll see what happens. On genre, we could either have a separate paragraph or join the discussion with the themes - the historical novel would be the most important, I think. We also need to mention the role of autobiography in the novels - I can't believe I forgot that one! I've copied what we have over to User:Awadewit/Sandbox so that we can try to use some of what we have already written while redrafting. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think we'll have to integrate Frankenstein into our larger "Novels" section. Eek. Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. After all, it shares the themes too. Also, it struck me that before we know it, the themes section will be as long as the novels stuff was. qp10qp (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I'll start integrating. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the messy draft over so it's easier to work on. I moved all of our other material over to the respective novel pages. The "Novel" section is going to be a mess for a bit. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The page is currently at 57kb of readable prose. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's healthier than I feared. I'm even getting 51kb on Dr Pda's gadget. 8,655 words. qp10qp (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my spare time (!), I am working on turning the red links blue. I've already done Richard Rothwell and Political Justice. If anyone wants to join in the fun, feel free! I was also thinking we might want to expand the novel articles a bit. They are rather sad. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. I admit that I made a decision at the beginning of working on MS not to get dragged into working around it, because there's no end to that, and I am committed to something similar with late-sixteenth-century France: I don't want to become another Casaubon.
Ha ha, is that Von Holst is a terrible artist, or what? (But just the sort of article I love to read.)
I do have Percy Bysshe Shelley and Matilda on my list to do properly some time, if someone else doesn't do them first. Also, user:bookworm has been working on Claire Clairmont, and I've agreed to help there. But there's potentially no end to it: I mean, Percy Florence no doubt could do with an article—it would be nice to rescue him from the relentless teasing of all the biographers (surely he wouldn't have been so loved by everyone he came into contact with were he a mere simpleton, boor, or buffoon).
Your article on Mounseer Nongtongpaw is wonderful. Now that is Wikipedia doing its job perfectly: a one-stop summary of the information and scholarship available. It's better than any passage I have read about the matter anywhere. qp10qp (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I would ever take on PBS. To be able to competently write about his poetry would require so much more reading than I have time to do! Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And I don't even particularly like his poems. But the present article is abysmal, and I think I could at least make it better. Now that we're working on Mary Shelley, his article sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm prepared to read through the poetry, but I would have to stick to a few critical compendiums for the criticism, because life is too short (shock horror). Not too bothered about good or featured status, just about some improvement. But this is a long-term possibility: at the moment I have only read the biographies by Holmes and Blunden. I'm deliberating over what edition of the poems to get: I'd like to see one with MS's notes.qp10qp (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of what still needs to be done

I like lists, so I'm creating a list to help myself. Scrolling through the talk page is starting to bothering me.

  • I think we need to include more about Godwin and Percy Shelley and their financial entanglements in the "Percy Bysshe Shelley" section, but I'm just not sure where or how to do it. It's so difficult to explain. However, I think money is so very important in all of these relationships, that it should be mentioned somewhere that he was giving Godwin large sums of money.
It's very complex indeed. Not least because, it does not seem to me that Shelley was giving Godwin what he was promising, and it is very difficult to work out what he did give him. It's been such a comedown for me to see how much these people thought about money, but that does make me agree that we should say more about it. They may have thought they were so careless of money because they despised it: but the truth is that they were clueless about money. What did Mary Shelley and Claire Clairmont do the minute they got hold of their Shelley bequests? Invest £6,000 (context: Mary got £50 for Perkin Warbeck) in a bloody opera box (sounds to me like they were done by the equivalent of a modern-day timeshare scam). qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
By the time she returned home for a second time on 30 March 1814, Percy Shelley had become estranged from his wife and was regularly visiting Godwin, whom he had agreed to bail out of debt - This is the first mention of Godwin's money troubles. We need to add something. Should we mention in the first section that Godwin was having difficulties so that it makes more sense that PBS would need to bail him out? Awadewit (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I leave it to you. The subject is very complicated and summarising it defeats me (mainly because I can never work out what the debts were and how much Shelley actually stumped up). There is a deep mystery in it, which I suspect arises from some kind of philosophical agreement: that money is meaningless and therefore those who have it should share with those who don't—or rather, that those who have it should share it with great artists and philosophers who don't. I suspect, however, that the practicalities lagged far behind and that less money changed hands, in reality, than was dreamed of. qp10qp (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I left out the philosophy part and simply tried to track the debts (but not by amount) - the sections are a bit wordy at the moment, but they are a first attempt. See what you think. If you want me add Godwin's theory of gratitude, let me know. That might be note material. Awadewit (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Make clear what was professional about MS's editing style.

The list is nearly done - I see the light at the end of the tunnel! Now, I have to write an interesting and informative lead! Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Polish the substantive notes so that they read well and are cited accurately.
One thing I always do is cut substantive notes down towards the end of working on an article. With distance, I tend to see how unnecessary quite a few are. I expect you would be happy for me to do that sometime, since I added most of them in the first palce.qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite the "Fiction" section so that it is more theme-driven and less work-driven. (Hopefully this will cut down on the size of the article.)
You've been doing wonders there. qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Create stubs for the redlinks.
  • Add a bit more on the Gothic to the "Novelistic genres" section.
  • Paraphrase some of the many quotations I've been adding to the "Literature" section

Please add to the list! Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

French book on Shelley

I keep seeing Jean de Palacio's Mary Shelley dans son oeuvre mentioned as an excellent work on Shelley. Unfortunately it is not translated and I don't have the time to plow through it right now. Can anyone zip through it? Awadewit (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems rare. I very much doubt I can get hold of it. qp10qp (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are several copies in my library. Want me to send you a copy? Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha, across the pond? I don't want you to rack up fines. It sounds a bit more trouble than its worth, to be honest. I really ought to join a library, but the nearest one bigger than a telephone box is 40 miles away. qp10qp (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, your library should sell a copy; they could probably get several hundred dollars for it and buy something more useful with the cash. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:MaryShelleyEaston.jpg

Apparently we cannot have the Easton image with the frame - it is a three-dimensional work. I have removed the frame, but something didn't turn out right with my image editing. Can someone fix the image file? Awadewit (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have applied a rectangle crop - see image on commons. I kept the image as JPG so there may be some artefacts although I couldn't spot any. I first tried saving the original JPG here as PNG (to minimise JPG losses) and then applying an ellipse crop but I could not avoid jaggies. So I restarted from your ellipse crop because it had smoother anti-aliased edges. (Wikibob from Commons) -84.222.0.142 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to change this to a B&W version since the color versions included the frame and a cropped version of the color version was a derivative work. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotebox ref/ Valperga

I've added ref. Confusingly, there are two Oxford editions, one being in Oxford World's Classics, ed. Rossington, and the other being OUP, ed. Curran. I have reffed this to my edition, which is the Curran, whose book details seem to have slipped from the page. qp10qp (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I wanted to have only one version of the novel used as a reference, if possible, so I erased the others as I replaced the citations to their introductions. If you don't have the Rossington, I can try to find it. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I looked it up on Amazon Search Inside and changed the ref to the Rossington edition. qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I'm cutting myself off from the research. I must stop! So - revision of the writing remains.

  • Do you think some of the material in the "Novelistic genres" section should be in the "Gender" section?
Yes, maybe. The Gothic paragraph seems flimsy, relating to gender issues and scientific issues rather than to genre itself. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've redone the Gothic paragraph and moved it to "Gender". See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally clear on the relationship between Mellor and Poovey in the "Politics" section. That needs to be hammered out.

Please help with the revision! I'm drowning! :) Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I drowned when I was labouring to read those vast, dialogue-free novels. We were crazy even to attempt this.
If you are happy that the content is broadly sound now, I can start a deep copy edit, which will take me some time. In some cases, I will probably spoil the information inadvertently, so please revert me if that happens. I still have to do some time-consuming stuff at King Arthur, plus another review I've promised, and then I will switch into tunnel vision here. qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've committed myself to helping with Learned Hand, but I'm ready to start copyediting this one. qp10qp (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions during copyediting

  • I think some of the general statements may verge on the inaccurate (I've lost track of which of us added things, so I may be addressing these queries to myself, of course):
Mary Shelley's novels fuse the 1790s Godwinian novel with Walter Scott's new historical novel.[144] For example, Frankenstein addresses many of the same themes and employs similar literary devices as Godwin's Caleb Williams (1794). The first statement strikes me as misleading, since she only wrote two historical novels. The second sentence is not, strictly speaking, an example of the first statement, since it refers to Godwin but not Scott. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is from Clemit and Blumberg, I believe, who see elements of the historical novel in Frankenstein as well. This statement is not about the "historical novel". Would it be better to say "fuse elements of the..."? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have probably ruined it now with my fancy quote. I expect someone will send me to pseud's corner at FAC. But how the heck does one define the Godwinian novel? That Pamela Clemit has a lot to answer for.qp10qp (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The quote is fine. Defining the Godwinian novel in one sentence is probably impossible. One really has to understand some 1790s history to understand that genre. Awadewit (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While earlier Godwinian novels had shown how rational individuals could slowly improve society, The Last Man and Frankenstein demonstrate the individual's lack of control over history. Shelley's narrative style reflects this theme; many early Godwinian novels were written in first-person, while Shelley's novels were often written in third-person. I am not clear how the narrative style reflects this theme. The point about first/third person is in itself fuzzy; and "often" seems vague to me here. Matilda and The Last Man are written in the first person, and, arguably, from the framing device, so is Frankenstein, to a degree. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The primacy on individuals in Godwinian novels is shown through first-person narration while MS's challenge to the possibilities of individuality is shown through third-person narration. Frankenstein is written from many different points of view, another way to challenge the primacy of the individual. "Often" is more accurate than "always", obviously. I was trying for broad, but still accurate statements. Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit relieved, I must admit. If anything, for me. Matilda's first-person voice is the definition of lack of self control—she's neurotic to an almost existential degree. qp10qp (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mary Shelley's works argue that cooperation and sympathy, particularly as practised by women in the family, were the ways to reform civil society. This view was a direct challenge to the individualistic Romantic ethos put forth by Percy Shelley and the Enlightenment political theories articulated by her father William Godwin. This now ends the lead, but as a factual-sounding statement it is challengeable. I think it might be true of Lodore and Falkner, and possibly (haven't read it) Perkin Warbeck, but I don't think it is true elsewhere. Matilda suggests almost the opposite, unless you argue for feminine and familial qualities by their absence (both feminine and family values are corrupted and rejected). In Frankenstein, there is a strong suggestion that Frankenstein goes to his doom by rejecting the family but nothing about the reform of civil society. And although Euthanasia's values in Valperga do suggest the latter, family values don't really come into it. As I've mentioned on this page before, I do not think that Mary Shelley adopted one argument throughout her novels: her standpoint changed from book to book. Valperga in many ways echoes Percy Shelley's romanticism, since it is a paean to Italian republicanism. Curran suggests in his article in the CC (112–13) that Valperga was both Godwinian and Wollstonecraftian. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was trying to write a statement that summarizes the bulk of the scholarship that I have read. Of course it is challengeable, but is it challengeable using the sources? I think that sources back up this statement to a remarkable degree. Frankenstein suggests that Victor's failure was due to his inability to work within this reforming structure, according to what I have read. It is clear that MS does not present one argument in her writings, but I think the lead needs a broad statement of the "Literary themes and styles" section. This was my attempt. Of course, elements of her republicanism can be considered Godwinian. However, I wasn't sure how much nuance we wanted to add to the lead. I tried to pick out the dominant idea from the books I have read. Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is definitely challengeable using the sources, and the Curran ref above does that for Valperga. I do remember reading that Mary and Percy were writing on similar romantic themes in Italy, for example on republicanism and incest (Matilda and The Cenci both concerned incest). I am not convinced that she rejected either romanticism or enlightenment values (it seems to me that she fused them) until The Last Man, where quite plainly she challenges Shelley's romanticism, though in a nostalgic rather than bitter way (there's a sort of "oh, what was the use of all that if everyone dies in the end?" feel to it). Matilda is in many ways nostalgic in the same way for Mary Wollstonecraft: Mary Shelley takes up a story fragment of her mother's—the darkness, I think, is a result of her blues rather than any rejection of her mother or father's ideas. You will know how Clemit emphasises her Godwinianism. There is a strong argument in Lodore for domestic female values triumphing over doomed romantic posturing, but the matter doesn't end there. In the Rambles it is clear that Mary Shelley was still seducible by romantic republicanism: I have read quite a few passages from that book online, now, and it is remarkably political and hearks right back to her old romantic phase. (Her behaviour over Gatteschi showed that this was the case off the page too: she was basically sponsoring Italian revolutionaries.) I don't necessarily buy the view that she remained a total radical, but I do think her outward conservatism may have been something of a necessary disguise. qp10qp (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what I meant was the "bulk of the sources". Like I said, I was looking for a general statement for the lead. We can certainly add more and something on Shelley's republicanism would be good, I think. Whatever is included in the lead, however, will by its summarizing nature be somewhat misleading, I think. There is no real way to summarize Mary Shelley's works in one paragraph! Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do think we should avoid appearing to make any particular theories or readings sound like established facts. I've been having some more thoughts: see below (sorry to be such a pain).qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are "standard" readings and I think including those in the lead is a good idea. What I was thinking was: "What would a professor tell you on 'Day 1' of the Mary Shelley lectures?" We must include something in the lead about her writings. I will not be a party to an author article that doesn't describe the author's works in the lead! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've added an "often", to give a get out: "Mary Shelley's works often argue that cooperation and sympathy ...". qp10qp (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Although Mary Shelley believed, like her parents and her husband, in the Enlightenment idea that people could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, she also believed that irresponsible use of power led to chaos.[177] Moreover, Shelley's works largely criticise the way that eighteenth-century thinkers such as her parents believed change could be brought about. For example, the creature in Frankenstein reads books associated with radical ideals but the education he gains from them is ultimately useless.[178] Shelley is not as optimistic about the power of people to effect change as Godwin and Wollstonecraft, and she did not accept Godwin's theory that humanity could eventually be perfected.
I think this paragraph exposes a few frayed stitches where our two bouts of editing have been joined together, because the first and last sentence contradict each other. We need to thrash this out, because I suspect that the different books we've read have given us different views on Mary's politics: and we may need to combine the result more smoothly.
In brief, I do not think it is cut and dried that Mary was criticising Wollstonecraft and Godwin; on the contrary, I believe she held close to their beliefs till the end of her days. I also think that though she became disillusioned with aspects of Romanticism and radicalism, she also preserved some of her earlier beliefs all along. I don't suggest that the other interpretations that you reference are wrong, just that they are not the only way of looking at it. For example, Betty Bennett says of Frankenstein (An Introduction, 39–40): "The novel iterates the Godwinian-Wollstonecraftian concept that a corrupt system will taint or destroy all its inhabitants, expressed in their philosophic tracts Political Justice and Vindication and then fictionalized in the novels Caleb Williams and Maria. Frankenstein resurrects these eighteenth-century theories in a model that offers its nineteenth-century audience, now shifted from revolutionary war to revolutionary commerce and industry, the possibility of making revolutionary choices ... It also aligns [Mary Shelley] with visionary political reformers—among them her parents and P. B. Shelley—who embraced the Enlightenment belief in the potential improvement of humanity".
I wouldn't buy this simply on Bennett's say so; but in my opinion, the evidence of the books backs it up. Yes, MS exposes the futility of Romantic idealism in The Last Man; but Valperga is nothing if not a grand Romantic tale, surely. Mary Shelley's special touch there is the feminism, itself Wollstonecraftian, but the book also shares Percy Shelley's libertarian values. She is advocating idealism in the form of Euthanasia's political system, which challenges Castruccio's imperialism in the way that Mary and Percy opposed Austrian imperialism against small Italian states in the Italy of their time. This reading is straightforward, I believe, and is backed up by Curran's analysis. Shelley also challenges the church in Valperga, and she expected that to cause a ruckus with the critics, but they didn't notice it. The clincher, for me, though, is Rambles, which is consciously libertarian, even revolutionary. (And apparently this political stance can also be found in Shelley's Lardner Lives.) So I think our treatment of her politics needs to take this possibility into account. At the moment, there is some jarring of views in the passage above and in the last part of the lead, in my opinion.

This was the most difficult section to write, IMO. It is clear that MS endorsed parts of Godwin's system (which itself was not static, of course!) and Wollstonecraft's theories while at the same time challenging other parts. However, the more detailed I tried to be in my drafts off-wiki, the worse they became. There was just too much to explain about Godwin and Wollstonecraft (and Burke) to make the whole picture clear. I came to the conclusion that it would be best to write a broad strokes version. I feel like another way out of these various morasses is to sit down and write a Themes and style of Mary Shelley subpage or to write all of the works' pages. Then our heads would be clearer. Those options, however, take so much time. In the end, I tried to avoid getting bogged down by individual texts and tried to bring together all of the broad statements that I could find. Obviously, this approach loses a lot in nuance. However, I feel that it is the only approach we can really use.
Now, if we want to be more specific about which parts of Godwin, Wollstonecraft, and Burke she was criticizing and which parts she was endorsing, we should certainly do that. I did actually try and do that, but perhaps not enough. Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am still unhappy with this paragraph; it does contradict itself quite heavily. I wrote the first sentence, and this really is what Bennett says. We need to find a way of blending the two angles together, but I'm a bit stuck. Maybe I'll be able to get my head round it in the morning. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
MS's writings are not a logical philosophical system. At times they challenge certain elements of Enlightenment thinking (such as the focus on individualism) and at other times they do not (such as the focus on reform). How to make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've been working at this paragraph, and constantly re-reading the Bennett and Mellor refs (can't read Blumberg). I treated it as an equation, taking little bits out of each end of the paragraph, trying to get the opposites to balance. I found in the end that it helped to remove names from the opening and to make a distinction of the fact that Mary Shelley may have believed in the ideals without trusting that humanity could be relied on to carry them out. I also noticed that Mellor's view is essentially a literary reading, whereas Bennett I think goes a lot on the letters, so I have made a distinction between what Shelley believed was desirable and the more pessimistic conclusions discernible in her works. The paragraph now reads:
Mary Shelley believed in the Enlightenment idea that people could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, but she feared that the irresponsible exercise of power would lead to chaos.[179] In practice, her works largely criticise the way 18th-century thinkers such as her parents believed such change could be brought about. The creature in Frankenstein, for example, reads books associated with radical ideals but the education he gains from them is ultimately useless.[180] Shelley's works reveal her as less optimistic than Godwin and Wollstonecraft; she lacks faith in Godwin's theory that humanity could eventually be perfected.
Could you check this doesn't contradict anything Blumberg says? qp10qp (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This works. Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Feminist critics often focus on how authorship itself, particularly female authorship, is represented in the novels.[164] For example, Shelley describes one of the heroines in Valperga, Beatrice, as strong and gifted but reveals that Beatrice is trapped in a society which does not appreciate her.
I'm not sure that the second sentence is a good example of the point about authorship. Beatrice is a visionary and prophetess but not an author; and I don't believe she is introduced into the story to comment on authorship so much as on the church's tyranny. qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree - let's cut that example. Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Tied myself in knots over this and in the end cut the point rather than the example and found an assertion point to link Beatrice to the previous point about Frankenstein. Please check. qp10qp (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But that point is essential. The Beatrice example is peanuts compared to the point about female authorship. Gilbert and Gubar's book, for example, is all about female authorship and representations of female authorship. This idea is key to feminist scholarship and it permeates what they say about Shelley. The examples are hard to give because they depend on the details of the stories, but I think we have to have this point. I've restored the original point, minus the Beatrice example. Should I search around for an example that is easy to explain in one sentence? Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I took it out was technical, that the Hoeveler reference doesn't support the inference given to it. She is citing one critic and the example is specifically tied to Frankenstein. If you want to make a point about critics in the plural often saying this about the novels in the plural, then in my opinion another reference will have to be found; and I think the point would need to be developed at least one sentence further. Simply cutting the example leaves the point hanging, since it doesn't logically follow from the previous point. The issue of Beatrice is not at all peanuts in respect of gender, in my opinion, since she represents a cult that is feminist in nature and is suppressed. qp10qp (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason that the Beatrice example is peanuts compared to the point about female authorship is because the Beatrice example is only about one character and the female authorship example explains the methodology of feminist literary critics and how they approached the works of Mary Shelley. Considering Gilbert and Gubar's book is entirely about this topic and it is so very important, we cannot leave out this point. Does that make sense? Hoevler's essay does focus on Frankenstein, but essays in The Other Mary Shelley, Mary Shelley in Her Times, Poovey, and parts of Mellor focus on the other novels. Do you want to add those to the note? Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We just need to nail the point in with appropriate citations: I'll have a look in Mary Shelley in Her Times, which I recently bought but haven't read yet. qp10qp (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added Mitzi Myers' essay to the note and sources; it hits the spot, because it discusses other novels and critics on the point. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you possibly check whether there's an "of" missing in the following quote: there is no more delightful literary task than the justifying a hero or writer, who has been misrepresented or reviled? (It might just be an old diction, of course.) qp10qp (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I split the first sentence originally because I felt it was too long. To be honest, I don't mind the first paragraph this way (but I hate Wikipedia first paragraphs anyway; at least we haven't got any IPA or Russian). What about, for the third sentence, saying: "Her father was/her mother was", to break the monotony?
Good enough. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that you changed all of the page ranges from 100-06 to 100-6 and the like. I had done this because certain FAC reviewers like that style. Personally, I can't believe people debate these things. Just letting you know this actually comes up as an issue. Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I only changed a few, because I've never seen "0" at the beginning of the second part of the page range; I think we should have 100–106, not 100–06 or 100–6. Otherwise, double second numbers are the norm, of course (109–11).qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If this comes up at FAC, can you deal with it? I once tried to make this argument and I don't have the patience to do it right now. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's tedious. The one that always comes up with me is date formatting: even though I've read the dates rules till I'm blue in the face, I still tend to get some wrong. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • On 28 July 1814, the couple eloped to France, taking Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, with them. - Can we really say they "eloped" since they didn't intend to marry? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That's struck me, too. But the books I read seemed to use this word. I've just checked the dictionaries, and some do allow a looser use of the word to mean "run away with one's lover". Apparently, the derivation is from "aloper", to run away! qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Just checking. I edited it out of the lead. We can put it back if we want. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I know. It can't be left out; yet it doesn't seem to fit in, except a bit with the Payne material.
Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Bennett is known for advancing the "Shelley is liberal/radical" theory. Shouldn't we have her in the "Politics" section, then? Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added her view at the end of the section. qp10qp (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have only cited to the Selected Letters; haven't got the other one. qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the three-volume Letters then. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review?

What do you think about putting MS up for peer review and asking some of our nice friends to look at it? I feel like we're starting to live on a MS island. What if they say "cut half of the article" and we're rearranging little words? Ever since the Joseph Priestley debacle, I've had a "peer review early" mantra. Awadewit (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest the same thing. I've whittled some length off the article and the DrPda thingie registers 51kb readable prose (I think Sandy tends to view anything above 50 as too long, so we're close now). I am definitely up for PR (bites nails). qp10qp (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we'll get leeway for writing about an important figure? :) Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it should be an issue, as 50kb is acceptable. The article looks a whole lot bigger than it is because of the thorough notes and bibliography. Longer articles have gone through.qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC

The FAC statement is up and ready for your sig. Feel free to edit it as well. Awadewit (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New image

I've added another version of the oval image which I think is OK. I wanted a white background, but the black hides the pixelation. This is a fake Paint Shop Pro frame, the closest I could find to the original. What do you think? qp10qp (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The black background is a little shocking - how bad is the pixelation? Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What about grey? Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a go tomorrow. It's not too bad. qp10qp (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't do it without looking ragged, so I have just put in a raw oval, with no frame. The image is so small, particularly on the thumbnail, that perhaps no one will notice the jaggedy edges. (I had to control myself not to paint out the white blob on the left, but it's on the scan.) qp10qp (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

British English

Since the article appears to use British English spelling (with good reason), you might consider using the s versions of popularized and recognized. According to my reference, they are the more common spellings in Brit. Eng. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Most reference citations ever on Wikipedia?

I believe this article may have broken the record for the most reference citations in one article that isn't a list. I think the previous record holder was USA PATRIOT Act, but that article only has 239 citations compared with Mary Shelley's 253. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. We had more before we trimmed the article! I don't think there are too many. I mean, it's not the sort of article where you can just stick a ref at the bottom of a paragraph. qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Shelley doesn't have the record – Hillary Clinton has 341 and Roman Catholic Church has 375. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Whew! There are some things more controversial than challenging the sexual stereotypes of the day. :) Well, maybe not. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the passing of 200 years tends to minimize controversy - remembers huge discussion about the early Roman Catholic Church - or maybe not....--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Shelley did beat John McCain by one (253 vs. 252)! Pretty cool that the two most cited biography articles on Wikipedia are both women :) 166.77.6.4 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

In the section "Percy Bysshe Shelley", one of the sentences is confusing, namely how could William Godwin have "accepted money from Percy Shelley" if Shelley had become "penniless"? Kaldari (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about accepting money, because Percy Shelley did not resume negotiations with Godwin immediately on returning from France. qp10qp (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to make the link for Queen Mab more specific, although that's assuming it is a notable work. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know I'm the slowest proofreader in the world, but I finally got around to finishing the article. The only other thing I noticed is that the sentence that starts "The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation" is a bit confusing/difficult to read, IMO. Eclipse of her reputation by what? Frankenstein? Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the course of the nineteenth century, Mary Shelley came to be seen as a one-novel author at best, rather than as the professional writer she was; most of her works have remained out of print until the last thirty years, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. - new version - is this better? do we need to say the one novel was Frankenstein? Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that is much more straightforward. BTW, I finally got around to replacing the family tree with an SVG version (which is scalable and editable). Hope you like it. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for fixing up the family tree! Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did all of my proofreading and commenting on this article from a cell phone! Is there a barnstar for that? :) Kaldari (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very patient! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't this have an infobox? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's fine without one. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we chose not to have one. They tend to say what is already written at the beginning of the article, and people start to add unreferenced "influenced" parameters that grow into a list, flags, and all sorts. Infoboxes are only an optional "extra". I never read them, I find. qp10qp (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think that the infobox is repetitive and unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But an infobox makes the article look more professional. Besides, every biographic article in Wikipedia has an infobox. Why doesn't Mary Shelley deserve one ?

  • IMO, there is nothing professional about an infobox since it merely repeats information already in the lead. Moreover, not every biography on Wikipedia has an infobox. Many FAs do not, for example. There is no requirement for an infobox. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, an infobox is also quick to look at and direct. It's good for people looking for specific information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalv89 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

All of that specific information, name, birth and death date, etc. is easily available in the first few sentences of the lead. We don't need such a hideous box when we have such a lovely caption. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dionysius Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia

Cabinet Cyclopaedia is spelled both with and without the ash ligature in the three times it is wikilinked in the article, with no clear reason for the difference. Also, the entry in "Selected list of works" section drops the a. The apparent inconsistency may be better removed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fell in love" vs "had an affair"

The following sentence in the second paragraph seems to skirt around the subject in a subjective and ambiguous manner:

In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Would not the following be more appropriate?

In 1814, Mary Godwin began an affair with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Neelix (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "had an affair with" would be more appropriate, for two reasons. 1) MS eventually married PBS; 2) The words "began an affair with" have a strong negative connotation that we try to avoid in this article. We try to present the story to the reader and let them draw their own moral conclusions. The story of Mary Shelley's life has often been told in strongly moralistic tones and we really wanted to avoid that here. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
MS marrying PBS doesn't preclude a prior affair. Would 'liason' have less of a negative connotation? Saying that they "fell in love" is a highly subjective statement about their unverifiable emotions. It also simply emplies that PBS empregnated MS rather than actually saying so. I am not attempting to impose a moral judgement; I am attempting to turn an ambiguous explanation of the story into one which is more concrete. An unbiased sentence would state what they did rather than what their emotional state may have been. Even stating that they "had intercourse" or "engaged in sexual activities" would be more appropriate than "fell in love". Neelix (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"Liason" also has an extremely negative connotation, I'm afraid. There is nothing unverifiable about their falling in love. They both wrote in letters that they were love - there is nothing subjective about it. Changing it to a statement about their sexual relationship would dramatically alter the meaning - their relationship was clearly more than a sexual one and reducing it to that would give the reader a false impression. I'm really not sure what the problem with this statement is: MS did fall in love with PBS, by her own account and by others' accounts. What do you feel is misleading about this statement? Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that the paragraph only hints that PBS was the father of MS's child. This is what the section I am referencing:
In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant.
In my initial reading of these two sentences, I did not understand how she became pregnant. I had to read the two sentences twice before I realized that an actual relationship existed between MS and PBS. When I first read "Mary Godwin fell in love with... the married Percy Bysshe Shelley," my assumption was that she admired him from afar or that it was an unrequited love. The following statement does not completely clear up this misunderstanding in saying that she became pregnant, as no connection between the relationship and the pregnancy is stated.
I think I have hit upon a solution that will be satisfactory on all accounts. Why don't we switch the wording to the following:
In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. With the resulting pregnancy, she and Percy faced two years of ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter.
The term "romantic relationship" has no negative connotations, nor does it reduce the concept to either an emotional state or a sexual partnership. Stating that the pregnancy resulted from this relationship more clearly establishes the link to Percy as the father, and also removes the unnecessary information about MS and CC travelling through Europe, which is not really pertinent. Do you find this solution to be more acceptable? Neelix (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see the problem you are pointing out. I hate to leave out a reference to their European trip, though, which was a big deal. She lost her reputation because of this trip (the pregnancy only added to her shame). One of the problems we are running into here is that the lead cannot explain everything. Here are two different options (one is clearly much wordier than the other):

  • In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant with Percy's child.
  • In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe. Upon their return, Mary and Percy faced several years of ostracism, as a result of their elopement and Mary's resulting pregnancy, as well as constant debt and the death of their prematurely born daughter.

What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The first version is less confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"With Percy's child" certainly helps avoid confusion. Would it not be possible to employ "began a romantic relationship" as well? Doing so would look like this:
In 1814, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with one of her father's political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for Franch and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregnant with Percy's child. Neelix (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Either of those sounds good to me. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes

MOS:BIO was edited recently to make the use of "Mr", "Mrs", etc. more strongly deprecated. Of course, when you're dealing with lots of people in the same family with the same last name, it can be tricky to avoid using these as shorthand in various situations. In this article, specifically, we have two sentences using honorifics:

  • "Kegan Paul later suggested that Mrs Godwin had favoured her own children over Mary Wollstonecraft’s."
  • "Mr and Mrs Godwin were present and the marriage ended the family rift."

Any suggestions on how to reword these to avoid the honorifics?

On a related note, at some point we all need to sit down and come up with some useful guidelines on how to handle maiden names vs. married names, as the current guidelines fail to address a myriad of situations that crop up periodically. This seems to be an especially tricky thing to deal with in biographical articles of women. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The first one is tricky - we can't refer to her as "Mary", since we are contrasting her to "Mary Wollstonecraft". Referring to her as "Mary Jane" doesn't totally eliminate the confusion. "Mary Jane Clairmont" eliminates the marriage. "Mary Jane Godwin", perhaps? One problem with that version is that I don't think we use it at any other point in the article, so it might actually be confusing. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we change this to "her parents" without confusion? (William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft were biologically her parents, while William Godwin and Mary Jane Clairmont raised her.) I think confusion might arise. Changing it to "William and Mary Jane Godwin..." seems unnecessarily awkward. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me know when you want to tackle the maiden/married name guideline. Every time I have tried to change a MOS guideline, it has been a disaster, but I can be optimistic, right? :) Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean about those sentences being tricky. I wasn't sure how to fix them myself. Unless you can think of good ways to resolve the ambiguities, I wouldn't mind leaving them for the time being.
Trying to change the MoS is often frustrating, but I'm actually glad it's somewhat difficult to change (so we don't have new guidelines to deal with every week). There are debates on some MoS pages that have been going on for years. BTW, if you think there is actually a case for legitimate use of "Mr", "Mrs", etc, you should jump in here. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Done - see if the post is confusing enough! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted a response. I'd like to try editing the entire article along those lines. The subject of the article would be "Godwin" then "Shelley", with subsequent use of her relatives' names arranged to harmonize with that. Would anyone here mind if I tried it? It could be reverted if it's not an improvement. Ariadne55 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You could try, but as you can tell from my response, the names in this article were carefully chosen. For example, "Mary Godwin" and "Mary Shelley" are used throughout. "Mary" is only used when it is necessary to distinguish from "Percy" (putting the two on an evenly informal level). Using "Godwin" and "Shelley" for MS will only cause confusion, I think. Too many people associate those names with "William Godwin" and "Percy Bysshe Shelley". Even if you choose to do this, however, problems would remain. "William" is the name of both William Godwin (Mary Shelley's father) and William Shelley (Mary Shelley's son). "Percy" is the name of both Percy Florence Shelley (Mary Shelley's son) and Percy Bysshe Shelley (Mary Shelley's husband). If you can make the names any clearer, I would be happy with that, but we did think this through! The names are just a mess here (too many people are named for each other)! For your information, there is a family tree here. Awadewit (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see your approach, Ariadne55. Perhaps it can be made to work here. If so, I'm confident it could be applied anywhere. I don't think it will be easy though. Be sure to acquaint yourself with that convoluted family tree first. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Windsor High Park

Hi there! I recently added a (meanwhile deleted) reference to Mary Shelley's Short Story "The Mourner" (and one might/should probably add "The Last Man") to the sentence about Mary Shelley living in Bishopsgate "on the edge of Windsor Great Park" – an area that she describes in detail in the above works. I find this fact quite as significant as the following:

"At Bishopsgate, Percy wrote his poem Alastor; and on 24 January 1816, Mary gave birth to a second child, William, named after her father and soon nicknamed "Willmouse"."

Isn't the connection between life and literary work worth mentioning? In fact, one might add to this, since it's one of the prominent features in her writing that she recycles places she's been to in her texts. Or is it more important that Mary Shelley gave birth at a place rather than that it seems to have impressed her enough to feature in her work?

What do you think? I don't want to mar this excellent article, but I always enjoy insights of this kind, especially when they refer to lesser known works of an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinuvielas (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tinuvielas - thank you for your contribution. There are many such connections in Shelley's work. The question is which ones to mention in such a brief article as this one. "The Mourner" is not an oft-read work nor is it studied by scholars much, which is one reason I deleted this interesting tidbit. This article tries to present only the most important information on Shelley and her works - that which scholars themselves repeat. That said, do you have a source for how Shelley uses places more generally in her works? You will notice that in the "Autobiographical elements" section, we discuss how the people Shelley knew appear in various guises in her novels. We could definitely add something there about how the places she visited provided fodder for the settings of her novels and short stories (I remember reading about this when I was researching the article). We just need a reliable source. Awadewit (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks :-). As to the information being unsourced, I didn't think it necessary to add any source in this case since the name of the park & lake Virginia Water in it are referenced in the beginning of the story:

"A georgeous scene of kingly pride is the prospect now before us!--the offspring of art, the nursling of nature-- where can the eye rest on a landscape more deliciously lovely than the fair expanse of Virginia Water, now an open mirror to the sky, now shaded by umbrageous banks, which wind into dark recesses, or are rounded into soft promontories?".

At any rate, "The Mourner" is one of only three short stories by M.S. currently available in German translation, so I'm astonished to hear it considered not oft-read... However, I see your point about saying something more general about Shelley using place names, and since I'm writing on her anyway these days, I'll be on the lookout for scholarly opinions about this fact. Be back if I find something... ;-).

p.s. I still think that mentioning Percy Shelley writing Alastor in Bishopsgate is quite as (if not more) tangential in this connection as mentioning the above... isn't it?

Tinuvielas (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know why we included the bit on Alastor - MS biographers mention it. It is such an important PBS poem. However, I see now that we don't mention Prometheus Unbound! How could we have forgotten? Is it better to take away Alastor or add Prometheus Unbound? (Are all of Mary Shelley's novels translated into German?) Awadewit (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, difficult question – but if you ask me, in a MARY Shelley article, I think Prometheus Unbound is rather more important than Alastor. I don't see the connection of the latter to Mary Shelley (yet - anyone?). As to the novels: Only "Frankenstein" and "The Last Man" are currently in print, the latter in a most horrible edition – no idea (yet P) if any of her other novels ever were. I'll find out! ;-) Tinuvielas (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - let's add Prometheus and see if we can elaborate on the meaning of Alastor. I'll have to gather up my books over the next few days - they are scattered around. Awadewit (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help with Percy/Alastor, but if I run across anything, I'll let you know. As to the translations: Among the 77 items listed in the German National Library are more or less 70 editions of "Frankenstein" (first translated 1912), one of "The Last Man" (heavily edited and abridged, 1982), "Rambles" (2002, translated by scholar Alexander Pechmann who has also written an excellent biography and translated the first edition of "Frankenstein" – he is apparently working hard at establishing Mary Shelley & her work in German); a volume of three short stories (The Mourner, The False Rhyme, Transformation) and her essay "On Ghosts". Tinuvielas (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was probably responsible for this part of the article; checking back through the biographical sources, I see that Spark and Seymour do emphasise the significance of Alastor to Mary's Bishopsgate period. I've also just looked at Mary Shelley's published notes to the poem, and she suggests that none of Percy's poems were more characteristic. Spark calls Alastor "his first mature poetic achievement", a judgement shared by Sunstein. However, while arguing therefore for the retention of this emphasis, I do now see that I should have also mentioned The Last Man here, given that it evokes Windsor. Happy to rectify that when this discussion finishes. Sunstein mentions The Mourner in a note in this context, but I'm not sure whether a notesworth in a long biography is enough to justify a mention of that story in the main text of our tightly potted equivalent. There are biographical connections in so much of Mary Shelley's fiction.qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's add this material in. (Note: I'm teaching Frankenstein right now!) Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... how about Victor Frankenstein being modeled on Percy Shelley? According to Karen Karbiner, Victor Frankenstein shares Percy Shelley's creativity, intensity, passion and even his propensity to put his work before his family-ties and neglect his lover (Karen Karbiner: "Cursed Tellers, Compelling Tales: The Endurance of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", Introduction to: Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, Barnes & Noble, xiii-xxxi; need to check place & date of publication though). Interesting observation imho... 77.133.45.229 (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Italic text

I think that is more appropriate for the Frankenstein article. That article is a mess, though. Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've added the following to the Bishopsgate passage, referenced to Sunstein: "In her novel The Last Man, she later imagined Windsor as a Garden of Eden". The reference can serve for the Alastor mention too. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice & satisfactory I think, though one might have added "and other works" – Mary Shelley is still widely regarded as a "one-novel" (or at most "two-novel"-author, including "The Last Man"). As to Shelley/Victor, I guess you're right that the Shelley-reference would be better on the "Frankenstein"-page – although if one wanted to give an example for the frequent biographical allusions in her work, "Frankenstein" would probably be your best bet. I'll take a look at the "Frankenstein"-article this week anyway, but haven't read enough (yet) I think in order to dig into that one. 77.133.108.178 (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Age at mother's death

ginamarie emanuel proposes a simple factual correction: Mary Shelley's Mother died when she was eleven days old.. The article states that the death occurs ten days post pratun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginamarie emanuel (talk • contribs) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Irving

It's interesting to see how different perspectives paint different pictures! According to this article, Payne tried to convince Washington Irving to propose to Shelley when his own love for her was left unrequited. My own readings on Washington Irving actually say that Payne was spurned by Shelley because of her interest in Irving. Payne and Shelley talked about a marriage with Irving before Irving was aware of it, it seems. This information is coming from Washington Irving: An American Original (2008) by Brian Jay Jones. Any comments on the discrepancy in info? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you possibly copy here exactly what Jones says on this? Mary is romantically inscrutable, but perhaps we could try to establish the sequence of events. qp10qp (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There's quite a few pages discussing this. I'll summarize and quote where I think it helps. Jones writes that, after keeping their mutual friend Payne "at arm's length", Payne revealed to Irving that she was interested in him (Jones calls it a "crush"). "She said you had interested her more than any one she had seen since she left Italy... that you were gentle and cordial, and that she longed for friendship with you... at first she fired at my mentioning that she talked as if she were in love." She then asked for Irving's letters. She continued corresponding with Payne, at one point noting that marriage plans were taking too long. "Methinks our acquaintance [Irving] proceeds at the rate of the Antediluvians, who, I have somewhere read, though nothing of an interval of a year or two between a visit. Alack! I fear that at this rate, if ever the Church should make us one, it would be announced in the consolatory phrase that the Bride and Bridgegroom's joint ages amounted to the discreet number of 145 and 3 months." Payne tried to convince Irving to pursue the relationship: "I do not ask you to fall in love... very possibly you would have fallen in love with her." On Irving's end, the only mention he makes of Shelley in his journals is one comment: "Read Mrs. Shelley's correspondence before going to bed." He then returned Shelley's letters to Payne. That's all from Jones's book, pages 228 to 230 (sorry for my delay, by the way). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything there contradicts the account we have in the article, which is:

She also met the American actor John Howard Payne and the American writer Washington Irving. Payne fell in love with her and in 1826 asked her to marry him. She refused, saying that after being married to one genius, she could only marry another. Payne accepted the rejection and tried without success to talk his friend Irving into proposing himself. Mary Shelley was aware of Payne's plan, but how seriously she took it is unclear.

The key issue is whether that last sentence is too cautious. It is always difficult to tell how seriously MS took this sort of thing. She talked of marriage in this same pert-sarcastic tone with Trelawney, and I think the most one can say is that she was probably using humour for self-protection. My reading, therefore, would be that when Payne told her he'd try to fix her up with Irving, she adopted a joky tone as a defence mechanism. I think women talked in layers like that in those days out of necessity. I'm reluctant to believe that Mary spurned Payne because of Irving, or that she "used" Payne to get to Irving, because that sounds so unlike Mary Shelley, who was a very decent, and in some ways innocent, human being, as far as I can see. Payne may have believed that he was being used (that for Mary he was "only a source of introduction") to Irving, but I should think this would be a gambit of his rather than something which Mary would have recognised (after all, her contacts with Payne often did not involve Irving). Since Mary never mentions Payne and hardly mentions Irving in her journals, we are stuck with Payne's version of what happened, which must be treated with caution. One thing is clear: Mary did not ask Payne to show Irving her letters. (If she had, you'd think she'd have tried harder than such phrases as: "Give my love, of course Platonic, to I".) In fact, she asked him to burn them. For me, the key to this whole odd incident is Payne: Payne loved or was infatuated with Mary so much that he would "act the hero", as he put it, for her, so he pursued the Irving thing on her behalf, quite sillily. He was the chief cook and bottle washer of the whole "romance", while Mary and Irving stood on the sidelines—the first not without hope, since she obviously did fancy Irving, and the second (quite understandably, since he'd only met MS three or four times), with bemusement.

However, my reading doesn't count, and it certainly does seem, from what you bring, that Jones has produced, in a book published since we wrote the article, a more detailed account of this human comedy than that provided by MS's biographers.

Awadewit, would you be able to look at this book in your university library to see if or how we need to adjust our passage on this? So far, I have added that Irving intrigued Mary when she met him, to fill in a link in the sequence. qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have finally looked this up. The Irving book makes it clear Payne fell in love with Mary Shelley, but that she rejected him. However, the book also suggests that Shelley pursued Irving through Payne, asking for copies of Irving's letters. Unfortunately, the quotes provided for this interpretation in the biography leave a lot to be desired. I'm not quite sure where they are getting this from. The entire incident could be tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps we should reword the article to make our presentation of it less certain? Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the absence of evidence from Shelley herself, it sounds to me like the most we could add would be that Payne believed she had used him to get to Irving. qp10qp (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The source for this is the 1907 book The Romance of Mary Shelley, John Howard Payne, and Washington Irving, which contains the letters that Irving, Payne and Shelley wrote to each other. I'm not certain it's all tongue in cheek (Mary seems legitimately flustered when she learns that Irving might read what she wrote about the Antidiluvians!) That said, I do think the interpretation given in this article is entirely fair.Federalistpapers (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Shelley/Archive_4&oldid=816186703"