Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I am starting a list (that will only grow longer!) of questions about what to include:

• Should we mention the Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman that Godwin wrote after Wollstonecraft died? I think this book influenced Shelley's writing. Awadewit | talk 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. qp10qp (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• The work celebrates youthful love and political idealism and consciously follows the example of Mary Wollstonecraft and others who had reinvented the tradition of the continental Grand Tour. - This doesn't seem right to me. MW never went on the Grand Tour. She also wrote a work of travel literature - is that what this is supposed to be referring to? Awadewit | talk 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The source did say that. I took it to mean that whereas in the past rich people went on a set tour, now all sorts of people, includinmg women on their own, would go on tours, maybe to unconventional places, taking economic, political, and philosophical information into account too. However, it can be cut without loss. qp10qp (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this. qp10qp (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am less inclined to include all of the plot summary in the novel sections - I would reserve that for the novel pages. I would include only two or three sentences describing the plot. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done exactly that with all the other novels; but I thought a longer summary for Frankenstein might be appropriate. However, I won't mind if you cut it down.qp10qp (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it to include more publication history and more on PBS's contributions. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Traditional critics have seen the novel as a warning against scientific interference with nature, or against man's pretension to godlike power; but Mary Shelley's known political and religious views argue against conservative readings. She believed, like her parents and her husband, in the Enlightenment idea that man could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, but that irresponsible use of power led to chaos.[48] Unlike Prometheus, Victor Frankenstein creates his creature not on behalf of humanity but for his own selfish reasons, without thought of the social consequences. - I am strongly against weighting the article in favor of this "intended meaning" interpretation. This has long been dispensed with in literary criticism. Poovey is one example - she argues that Frankenstein is in many ways deeply conservative. Books can mean many things and literary critics no longer look only at the biographies of authors to determine their meanings - that is only one method. I'll add some Poovey here later today. Gilbert and Gubar is coming. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I leave it to you. But in a biographical article I feel it's necessary to take a biographical approach. The book's article is probably a better place to treat it as a text in isolation from its author's intentions. There are so many different interpretations of Frankenstein that it's the devil's job trying to dovetail and summarise them all briefly. Personally, I don't think Shelley thought her philosophical scheme out fully—which I think helps make the novel so richly tantalising. qp10qp (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to be editing this section for quite a while now. So feel free to improve it as you feel necessary. I am next going to work on the period from her birth to the death of Percy Shelley. I shall leave the rest alone for a while (apart from the section on Falkner, which is still very clumsy). I'd like to look again at all the rest of the stuff I've edited after a gap, so that I can be more objective about it. Once we have both finished our content edits, we can give the whole thing a real going over for prose style and copy editing. qp10qp (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and softened it slightly. I think I got the notion of traditional critics, which I admit sounds a bit off, from Bennett's "Traditionalists have applied the same conservative reading to the instruments of that implied usurpation: science and technology. But this facile conclusion is inconsistent with the overall philosophy that informs Frankenstein, Mary Shelley's other works, as well as her letters. . . . For the Shelleys . . . scientific experimentation served as a paradigm for political experimentation: both offered the means to create a better world". (Bennett (1998), An Introduction, 37.) qp10qp (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mary Shelley's first and most famous novel, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, was published on 1 January 1818, in a small run of 500 copies. - Are you sure this is small? See "note f" at Jane Austen. Awadewit | talk 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seymour says so, page 90. But I daresay she knows less about that subject than you do. The loss of the word "small" would make no difference, I think. qp10qp (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take it then because from the other things I'm read on Austen, I don't think this is right. Awadewit | talk 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than focusing on the twists and turns of the plot, she foregrounds the mental and moral struggles of the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, and imbues the text with her own brand of politicised Romanticism. - What is that brand? Awadewit | talk 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a brand bred from Percy Shelley's radical and idealised sensibility and William Godwin's socio-political framework for the novel. Do change it, if you feel it is too vague: it was based on Bennett. qp10qp (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll figure out some sort of wording after I've read that, then. Awadewit | talk 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Though Mary Godwin received little formal education, her father tutored her in a broad range of subjects - Going back to this question of education, I'm not sure I really agree that the evidence supports that her father tutored her. You have read more biographies than I have, though. However, after my exhaustive search for the Fanny Imlay article over this very issue, I'm skeptical of this claim. What does Bennett say? Awadewit | talk 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One can justify this from Bennett, Seymour, Sunstein, and Gittings and Manton. It is clear that the main evidence for Godwin's tutoring is Mary Jane Godwin's letter, in which she writes: "The girls have been taught by Mr Godwin Roman Greek and English history". We also know from Burr that the children were delivering a weekly political speech, which argues that he was teaching them political thought. We also know that he was taking them on many outings, explicitly didactic in nature. The two other supporting documents are Mary Shelley's letter in which she talks of his being a hard and demanding taskmaster; and his early letter from Ireland which reveals a close involvement with the reading and writing of the children when they were younger. I think the confusion comes from the "informality" of her education; this only means that she didn't go to school, not that she wasn't taught systematically. Given Godwin's control-freakery and interest in education, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been hands-on. qp10qp (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Clemit is also pretty clear about this - I added another citation. Do you think we should add something about MS attending a boarding school briefly? Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A phrase wouldn't do any harm. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added one. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I chose St Clair's version of the famous grave scene for the caption. Do you think the caption should say something more along the lines of "legendary story" and not mention the details? I can tell you the reason I added this story, but I would rather tell you over email - professional reasons and all of that. Awadewit | talk 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a little wordy at the moment. I would leave out the bit about the "birthday", which is a more complex business than a caption can handle, I suspect. qp10qp (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reduced caption size. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• On their return to England in September, Mary and Percy moved—with Claire Clairmont, who took lodgings nearby—to Bath, where they hoped to keep Claire’s pregnancy secret. - Why do they suddenly care? I thought it was because of the suit PBS was bringing to try to get custody of his children by Harriet. Awadewit (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is sudden. Percy had made a will in June leaving £12,000 to Claire, with half, it is implied, to go to her child. Whether Mary had any say in this support of Claire is not clear, but I feel the biographers (Gittings and Manton excepted) overdo their speculation about enmity between Mary and Claire (for me, Seymour and Spark are unprofessional in their snide remarks about Claire; but maybe there's no such thing as professionalism in biographers). Mary's letters occasionally show irritation about Claire, but in my opinion no more than one would expect between step-sisters. Mary had every chance to lose Claire after Percy died, but she did not do so, and the pair often praised each other in their letters (though this is little quoted). In my opinion (original thought alert), Mary was an essentially good person who would have naturally felt a duty to help a pregnant step-sister with no one else to turn to. Even if this were not the case, she could hardly have gone against Percy. One further dimension to this, as suggested by Holmes in The Pursuit, is that Percy may have done a deal with Byron at Cologny: if Percy would make sure that the birth was secret and discreet, Byron would take on the child when it was old enough. In fact, this is exactly what ensued, and it would explain why the Shelleys and Claire went to Italy when they did in 1818. The time had come.

As far as the custody case was concerned, it commenced after Harriet Shelley was found dead on 10 December, whereas our threesome had moved to Bath at the end of the summer. qp10qp (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry should have been clearer - why do they suddenly care about reputations? Is it because they wanted to give the child back to Byron? Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added something about that to my last comment. Yes, possibly. It may be that Byron agreed to take on the child later so long as the child was born and brought along discreetly. I note that Claire did not come clean about Alba even after she was born, but enacted some charade at Marlow whereby she purported to be looking after her for someone else. Byron would accept the child so long as it had no entanglement with Claire. My favourite childhood romantic turns out to be quite a b*****d. qp10qp (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we need to add any more to the article? When I was reading it, I stopped short because it seemed so odd - Shelley and Shelley didn't seem like the kind of people who cared about reputation. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that they were maturing somewhat and that they did care, if only for practical purposes (they now had a child and didn't want him taken away, which, given Sir Timothy's mentality, was not impossible). That letter Mary Shelley wrote to Mrs Hoppner was a complete cover-up of what went on at Naples, because she never mentioned Elena. Percy had only told a minimum of people and also tried to hush that up. In fact, the whole Naples trip, so far from their normal hangouts, makes Naples the Bath of Italy, so to speak: you go where you aren't known if you want to hide something. Byron was also keen on appearances as far as the birth of Alba was concerned. However free their ideals, these people all constantly had to take reputation into account, if only to keep the judgers off their backs. qp10qp (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the original question was about the Bath incident. Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. But the two situations are comparable in many ways: the same secrecy and fudging of letters and diaries. qp10qp (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is confusing to the reader - I still think the lay reader might wonder "why are they concerned about reputation when they just eloped?" Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they had just eloped. They had eloped in summer 1814, and this is autumn 1816. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But the issue is still confused in my opinion - I don't think it is clear to the reader why they care about reputation at this point when they clearly through reputation when they eloped. Awadewit (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Seymour says Elena Adelaide died on 10 June. The article, sourced to Holmes, says 9 June. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Holmes says he is quoting the death certificate. I've just checked with Bieri, who is such a pedant that he's the main man for this sort of thing, and he quotes the death certificate (he went to Naples and checked it in person, bless him), which says that Elena died at 3 in the morning on 9 June. I've added his ref to Holmes's.qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checking (he went to Naples!). Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The coast offered Percy Shelley and Edward Williams the chance to enjoy their "perfect plaything for the summer", a new sailing boat, which Percy called the "Don Juan", after the hero of Lord Byron’s poem. - According to Seymour, Trelawny named her the Don Juan and Shelley disliked the name (298). Awadewit (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seymour is right; I missed that. Mary says in a letter that Trelawny named it. I've cut that Percy named it but haven't tried to go into the details, which seem very complex. It seems that Trelawny and Williams were the original partners in the boat, which is how Trelawny came to name it; but then Percy Shelley became the owner and changed the title to Ariel, which annoyed Byron. When the boat arrived, Shelley had the name Don Juan removed from the sail. I had assumed, when I read about that before, that this was for aesthetic reasons (making "a coal barge of our boat"). Now I am confused and can't tell if the boat was called Don Juan or not when it sank (but I presume it had been registered under that name).

None of this detail is useful to the article, but I realised when checking that part of the text that when blocking all this in I failed to mention Trelawny until the cremation (smacks wrist). He therefore needs introducing earlier; the naming of the boat might be a good point, except for the obligation to explain why he had anything to do with its naming at all (sigh). qp10qp (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added Trewlany earlier, where you suggested, describing him as "a fan of Byron". See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleverly done. qp10qp (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think we should mention PBS's heart after his death or at the end of MS's life? It is currently in both places. I can't decide which is better. Awadewit (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have cut it from the first place for the moment, so that the section ends on the cremation. But by all means change it. My reason is that this detail comes in handy for the section on the end of her life, which might otherwise fizzle out. Mind you, there are all sorts of complexities about that heart's history. I doubt it could have been his heart at all, to be honest. qp10qp (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - it might be more poetic to end that way. We'll leave it up in the air for the moment. No reason to go into all of the details, either. (Do you think his heart could have withstood the flames?) Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the heart should have withstood the flames more than any other part; it sounds like the stuff of myth to me. If Hunt did rescue a piece of Shelley's body from the flames, I daresay it was anonymous flesh. qp10qp (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My roommate, who studies physics (the fundamental laws of nature, as he always reminds me) is telling me that the heart muscle is denser than other parts of the body, so it may not have burned as quickly. It seemed plausible to him that the heart might have survived. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What delightful conversations you seem to have.

OK, I withdraw my qualm. qp10qp (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does Spark make it clear that MS met Washington Irving? Seymour does not make that clear, so I was wondering. Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Spark says that she did meet him. So does Sunstein, who says she first met him while he was having his portrait painted; Seymour mentions this on p. 351. She didn't meet him after Payne tried to set her up with him, by which time he was abroad. qp10qp (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• She was delighted when her old friend from Italy, Edward Trelawny, returned to England; in subsequent letters, he too talked of marriage, but she ruled it out. - Seymour seems to indicate that Trelawny did not see MS when he returned to England - only Godwin - and that she was disappointed. (396).

Spark gives the impression that they did meet: "It was an altered Mary that Trelawny found when he returned to England", etc. Bennett says she was "elated over his return to England from Greece", not clarifying whether they met or not. I would take Seymour over Spark, though, since Spark is often sketchy, and she didn't have access to as many documents. qp10qp (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, on pg. 419, Seymour outlines the marriage proposal as more of a joke between the two. Perhaps we should rewrite this? Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On looking into this more closely, I think Seymour may be right. Spark and Sunstein however miss that. Sunstein says, "he would have hitched to Mary, to whom he proposed at intervals in the future". Spark says, "Now Mary, alarmed, dropped her badinage, and spoke in earnest, though somewhat forcibily: 'My name will never be Trelawny. I am not so young as I was when first you knew me, but I am as proud. I must have the entire affection, devotion, &, above all, the solicitous protection of anyone who would win me. You belong to womankind in general, & Mary Shelley will never be yours'."

Despite these views of Sunstein and Spark, I have now read Mary Shelley's letters to Trelawny carefully (I'm not sure where Sunstein gets the proposing at intervals from), and my instinct is that, yes, the marriage discussions are jovial. It's true that in the above quotation, Mary Shelley turns a bit earnest. But all flirting with women goes this way sooner or later, in my opinion, if the need comes to throw a firewall down. This doesn't mean that the whole exchange is thereby rendered serious, just that it ends up taking place through a portcullis. So, putting on my Sigmund Ricki Lake Freud hat here, I go with Seymour. By all means rewrite (it's a tricky little passage because the business of Trelawny's proposed book cuts in and out of it). qp10qp (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Current version: She was delighted when her old friend from Italy, Edward Trelawny, returned to England; in subsequent letters, he too talked of marriage, but she ruled it out.

Proposed version: She was delighted when her old friend from Italy, Edward Trelawny, returned to England, and they joked about marriage in letters to each other." Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Awadewit (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the emotional stress of this undertaking,[11] Mary Shelley proved herself a professional and scholarly editor. - I wonder if this is a bit strong - perhaps some context? As a statement without historical context, I don't think it can be supported. In today's environment, for example, she would not be considered a scholarly or professional editor. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't put that in lightly. Bennett is quite forceful about it: "The letters reveal that Mary was a more than responsible editor. She searched for first editions from which to correct proofs; she inquired after additional manuscripts of Shelley's works and letters; she asked advice and guidance from friends, including Hunt and Hogg. Her letters tell of her efforts in 'turning over Manuscript books—full of scraps of finished or unfinished poems—half illegible', the questions of her claim to copyright, and the frustrations of the work ... Subsequent editors have acknowledged their indebtedness to Mary Shelley for her arduous labours in transcribing often illegible and seemingly undecipherable manuscripts. And Shelley scholars have looked to her notes and her introductions as an invaluable source of biographical and critical detail. As is true for all editors, some decisions she made are open to criticism. But the letters show that even her most serious error, the failure to use first editions consistently as copy-text when manuscripts were not available, was not the result of amateurishness or indifference. In fact, Mary Shelley's letters reveal that her editorial principles, stated or implied, stand up well even by modern standards".

This view, I think, balances the necessary criticism of her editing. It comes from someone who knows Mary Shelley's letters inside out. qp10qp (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should make clear what she did well, but the fact that she presented PBS in such a specific way in the biographical notes (which I have tried to explain further in the section) makes me leery of saying just how "professional" she was. I think she was probably professional about certain aspects of the editing and not others - we should explain what those were. I'm about to get The Other Mary Shelley from the library - I had to recall it. That has another Wolfson essay in it about MS constructed herself in those biographical notes. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I leave it to you. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of wonderful quotes we could use in the "Preface" to the Poetical Works - would a quote box be better than the bland title page? I want some of MS's poetic words about PBS to be included. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. qp10qp (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Added one - it's a bit long, but I was loathe to cut it. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have an image of the Weeks monument - do you happen to have a scannable copy? Seymour's isn't very good. Awadewit (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've scanned the Stodart engraving in (spots per original) from Sunstein: Image:Mary and Percy Shelley. Engraving by George Stodart after monument by Henry Weekes.jpg. But I have to say that I don't like it. It's so inaccurate. qp10qp (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an artist's rendition. :) I would like to have some version of it in the article. If we find a better image later, we can replace it. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Critic Pamela Clemit, however, resists a purely autobiographical reading, contesting that Matilda is an artfully crafted novel in the Godwinian tradition, deploying confessional and unreliable narrations and Godwin's device of the pursuit - What was "device of the pursuit" mean? Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Clemit essay that came from, it says that Matilda was consciously modelled on Godwinian techniques. This is tied in with a journal entry of his friend Maria Gisborne reporting that Godwin thinks the pursuit the finest part of the novel. Clemit says that Godwin's "...praise for the pursuit and his focus on the issue of guilt, clearly indicates that he read Matilda in terms of the themes and conventions associated with his own school of fiction". It's clear that Clemit endorses this herself: apparently Caleb Williams and other books by Godwin are structured on the pursuit. Perhaps "device" is the wrong word, if that's what has raised your eyebrow; but certainly Clemit regards the pursuit as a Godwinian technique. I'm no literary analyst, however, so by all means get out your scissors. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "theme of pursuit". Awadewit (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I am just adding the books I'm using or intend to use as I go along. Later the bibliography will need tidying up, splitting into sections, etc.

I haven't been using the three dashes for repeated authors because they don't join together on all fonts, I've noticed; also, I'm not sure all Wikipedia readers will understand the convention, and I'm all for least astonishment. However, if this seems too unscholarly, feel free to replace such names with dashes. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• We can polish later. I usually leave out those dashes as well - others have encouraged me to do so. :) I only use dashes when there are no authors. Awadewit | talk 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Much better to go ahead & spell out the name for each individual reference, given the way editors can interpose different references or move them around. That sort of relativity was nice for typesetting purposes where the text was fixed, it looked nice, and it saved the typesetters' time, but on Wikipedia causes more problems than the visual appeal is worth. --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added Desperately Seeking Shelley to the external links. I've had soooooooo much pleasure exploring this site: France and Switzerland were never done, it seems, but the Italian pictures are wonderful, and it is good to see how lovely Field Place, where Mary ended up, was (though apparently it was damp). She would have loved those grounds. qp10qp (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Had a devil of a time finding this in the library, or online; then a link turned up in the Immortality article to this: wondersmith.com/scifi/mortal.htm. I may be weeding out the external links of Immortality soon, and you're doing such a fantastic job over here, I didn't want to just toss it on your well-crafted page; but neither did I want to lose this link, in case you found it useful, so I'm putting it here. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very useful. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am cutting some things out of the Frankenstein section. I think that the "reception" paragraph is too detailed. We should spend more time talking about the themes and style of the book. However, we should save this material in case there is room for it later.

At one extreme, John Wilson Croker, in the Tory Quarterly Review, called the novel "a tissue of disgusting and horrible absurdity" by one of Godwin's followers, "the out-pensioners of Bedlam".^[1] Novelist Sir Walter Scott in Blackwood's Magazine, on the other hand, noticed the author's aim "less to produce an effect by means of the marvels of the narrations, than to open new trains and channels of thought".^[2] The story has inspired many dramatisations and film adaptations; and the animation scene has become a horror cliché, despite its low-key treatment in the original.^[3] In the view of editor Susan J. Wolfson, " 'Frankenstein' speaks dreams and nightmares about our future in a technological world, where a matrix can be a mother".^[4] The novel itself is now established as a staple of literature courses in schools and universities. In the twentieth century, feminist reassessments of Frankenstein became influential, stimulating the rediscovery of Mary Shelley's other novels. Recent movements in scholarship, including post-colonialism, cultural studies, queer theory, and disability studies, have produced fresh readings of the text.^[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I leave it to you. But we should beware of removing too much encyclopedic information in favour of literary criticism. I have been trying to balance the two, leaving scope for you to expand the latter. qp10qp (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just think this is too much detail for a subsection. This belongs in the Frankenstein article, I think. I am more for generalized statements about reception, for example, than quotations in this article, unless the statements are very significant for some reason. I suppose my philosophy is: If users are coming to the page to read about Mary Shelley, I want them to learn a lot her works, too. I tend to think that lots of details get in the way of that. Your thoughts? Awadewit | talk 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not wedded to the quotes, but the reception of Frankenstein is essential information. In a way, reviews are the first notes of criticism. However, I'm all for ways of shortening the article. qp10qp (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new version of "Frankenstein's reception". See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to approach this. Looking around at other articles, the approach varies. Some divide works up into genres, some have first publication details, some have recent editions. Towards the bottom of the list, it seems to me impossible to set out all her stories, essays, articles, editing work, etc. Where does one draw the line?

Any suggestions on a method for this list? qp10qp (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• If the list is much longer than Mary Wollstonecraft, I would suggest a separate "List of works" article. Then we can laboriously type out each and every work. I'm sure one of those Pickering and Chatto volumes has all of her works listed. Over time, we can eventually enter them all. I find such pages are very helpful for people like me. :) I like to assist all audiences. If you don't want to work on such a page, I would be happy to do it. I derive a perverse pleasure from such things. In another life, I think I would have been a librarian. Awadewit | talk 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In the short term, what do you think would be best for this page itself? List of titles

1. followed by first publication dates.
2. followed by first publishing details
3. with a current, available edition and details
4. some other principle

Or do you think we should just cut the list, pending another page?

I don't think the list need be that long if we contract the Lardner's stuff and just mention the very few well-known stories. On this general page, for a selected list, I don't think we need to list her articles, essays, etc., none of which seem to be given much attention in the criticism. A second page could then go the whole hog. One way to shorten the list here would be to give a list of modern editions and collections, rather than laying out everything she had published in different editions of the Keepsake. We could do something like the relatively short "Editions" list in the Companion. qp10qp (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with a selected list, then. I would be for listing titles and first publishing dates only OR the entire publication information for the first edition. For selected lists, I prefer titles and dates only. The rest of the details can be on the other page. I am not in favor of listing modern editions - it smacks of advertising - which modern edition? Why that edition? Etc. It already makes me nervous to cite a particular modern edition in the notes. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started List of works by Mary Shelley and shorted our list to a "Selected list". Tell me what you think. Awadewit (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's trim. And wow, you've really grafted on that new page. You're excellent at that sort of thing. I missed Maurice there, but it was discovered since that bibliography was published. What's the decision on Nongtongpaw? qp10qp (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my inner librarian. I was wondering about those two. I think we should add them, but I want good bibliographic sources for them. Any ideas? Awadewit (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm not so sure on Mounseer Nongtongpaw. See my expansion of the page. Awadewit (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That page is delightfully scholarly! We might note on this page that it has been ascribed to Mary Shelley by some but not included in the latest collection; readers could then follow the link. I think we do have to mention it briefly, because people come to encyclopedias for assistance on quibble points of this very type. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Awadewit (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked in the body of the article now. I think I'll attempt a lead next. Not sure how to do a final legacy section. I've been trying to fold legacy information and assessments into the "Literary life" material, to avoid having too cumbersome and lopsided an ending. The difficulty is that one could go on till the cows come home about the legacy of Frankenstein, but Shelley's legacy otherwise seems restricted to the effect on feminist scholarship and on scholarship on the political significance of her work. Advice welcome. qp10qp (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "Legacy", I'm thinking of maybe trying a final paragraph (called "Reputation", or something) about the shifts in attitude towards her over the years. What do you think? qp10qp (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a short "Reputation" section (rather than "Legacy") to end the article. I'm not confident this is the right thing to do, but, anyway, it is there to be shot at. It probably needs more negative qualifiers, for example on the danger that in removing one set of presumptions about Mary Shelley, recent scholarship may be erecting new ones. I've seen this point made here and there in the commentary. qp10qp (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Reputation" is the right way to go for Shelley. She hasn't had a stunning legacy, I'm afraid, and we don't want to go on and on about Frankenstein, as this is not the Frankenstein page. Feminist scholarship is really where all of the main action is. I agree with the problem of adding and removing presumptions, but isn't that the case in any field? I worry about adding that to this article, since that would somehow single out Shelley, when really that is true everywhere. Thoughts? Awadewit | talk 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. That last paragraph is very rough at the minute, with one particularly vast ugly sentence in the middle of it. No doubt it will come right with time. qp10qp (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have finally made it through the "Biography" section. I think all of the major elements are there. I am now moving on to the more difficult (!) "Literary life" section. Awadewit (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

God help you. qp10qp (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had some difficulty with the names. To explain my approach, I have as often as possible, while trying not to lapse into clumsiness, called Mary Shelley "Mary Shelley" and Percy Shelley "Percy Shelley". The biographies tend to call Mary Shelley "Mary" and Percy Shelley "Shelley", but as was pointed out in a discussion about this on the Talk: Fanny Imlay page, this is rather discriminatory, and apparently there is a movement in scholarship to avoid this distinction. Non-biographical critical works tend to call Mary Shelley "Shelley"; but this is easy for them to do, since they are not having to mention Percy Shelley all the time as well. In places in the article, I have just called the two "Mary" and "Percy". In a way, this goes against the principle of using surnames, but I felt it was at least unobjectionable on the grounds of discrimination. I did this in places where I felt another "Mary Shelley" or "Percy Shelley" would have become infelicitous, making the prose too pedantic. In these places, the use of the first name follows on closely from the use of the full name, surname, or some othe precursor; for example:

Their Italian years were a time of intense intellectual and creative activity for both Shelleys. While Percy composed a series of major poems, Mary wrote the novels "Matilda" and "Valperga" and the plays "Proserpine" and "Midas".

Please adjust the text where you feel I have got this wrong. qp10qp (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this policy and its rationale - no Mrs. Shelley here, please :-). Awadewit | talk 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put in all the information I can, but there were a number of things that I wasn't sure about, and so these sections will benefit from a copyedit by someone with a more exact knowledge of the scholarly niceties. Where I reffed more than one essay from the same volume—as with the Cambridge Companion—I put the whole essay name and book details in the bibliography, despite all the repetition. I am not sure how to note/ref introductions in short form (where to put speechmarks, italics, or whatever); I've put all the reffed Shelley editions under her name in the main bibliography, but I think maybe (according to Turabian) I should have listed them under the surnames of the introduction writers I reffed—we probably need to divide the bibliography up into sections: maybe the list of works could be combined with the list of reffed editions?

I've generally avoided multiple refs because they can become intractable and easily orphaned, particularly when more than one editor is editing the text. Where a semicolon didn't seem strong enough in a combined ref, I used a linebreak and minibullet. Anyone who thinks templates would help in an article like this must be joking.

I tend to include lots of substantive notes, which I know is not everyone's way. I am open to reducing them, but I include them as an extra resource and as a device for explanation and transparency. qp10qp (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look at the citation stuff later (ick). What do you think about separating the substantive notes from the references, like William Shakespeare and Jane Austen? I like that style, actually. (Templates are a nightmare.) Awadewit | talk 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one appalling problem with it in practice: it is horrendous to maintain. This is because if a ref is cut, the numbers do not shuffle up as they do with cite.ph. So you then have do redo all the subsequent notes to make them match again, which takes ages. We've had that problem at Shakespeare and at Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), where, to my horror, Piotrus introduced the system during FAC at the request of a reviewer. If a system of adjusting numbers has been devised, I would be in favour. qp10qp (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone like Scartol or WillowW should be able to fix that. I'll ask. I mean. Really. Awadewit | talk 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Willow's talk page. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all a bit technical for me, I fear. qp10qp (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I've asked for a longer explanation. Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Awadewit#Pastries and people. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See new notes system. Before I refine the notes, see what you think. Awadewit (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the notes that way. The only thing is that I feel they have to have a cite tag "in" them, so that one can click on down to the footnotes (or one will end up going up and down the article like a mouse on a clock). In my opinion, that sort of separated note should always read well, rather than sound fragmented or like the second half of something. Perhaps I'm a nerd, but I love reading notes, which are like a little bonus. qp10qp (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - I just didn't want to bother with all of that if we were going to revert back to the old style. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started polishing the notes. Awadewit (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shelley, Mary. Mathilda. Ed. Elizabeth Nitchie. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959. OCLC 249434. Gutenberg copy, retrieved 16 February 2008. - Which text did you consult - the print or the online? We should cite the one you consulted. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gutenberg. I'm never quite sure how to make that clear. qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we just cite the Gutenberg text (whichever one it is) and then provide the link. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think about not listing the CC essays separately in the Bibliography, but listing their titles in the notes and adding (CC) after them? We could add a note at the top of the "Notes" section explaining: "All essays taken from the Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley are marked with a "CC" (or something like that). I think those essays are cluttering up the bibliography. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. It was an interim measure. Yes, your idea would save a great deal of space. qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on fixing this up, then. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's done. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The imagequote thing doesn't work for me: it pushes the text right over to one side. This may be something to do with my preferences, but I've seen other people complain about the same problem. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's ask Scartol. He designed it. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. I wonder if it renders differently on different browsers or configurations. Can you tell us anything about your setup, Qp? Are you using Firefox? Internet Explorer? Some other browser? Widnows? Mac? Linux? The more info I have, the more able I'll be to offer help. And can you clarify what you mean by "it pushes the text right over to one side"? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 00:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on Firefox. I have the font set big because I sit right back from the computer, so that might be it: this rarely causes problems, though. The quote about Mary Shelley conceiving the idea for Frankenstein only occupies the right hand side of the space: so the first line reads "I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts . . .", and then a new line starts. When I had this problem with one of Mike Christie's Anglo-Saxon articles, the lines were only two or three words long, so the quote was a long thin strip down the right hand side of the page. I've seen others mention this phenomenon. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm able to replicate the issue in both IE and Firefox. For starters, the quote looked ok and I was wondering what this thread was about. I resized the browser window and increased the font size so that the start of the quote was past the bottom of the image. In that case the paragraph(s) before the quote were flowing around and under the image but the quote itself is still indented as though the image is to the left of it. What's happening is that you give Imagequote an offset in absolute pixels, 210 in this case, and that's exactly what you get.

It will be very non-standard but a fix is instead of using Imagequote to wrap the quote in a table using {| style="padding: 0; margin-left: 2em". I went ahead with adding this to the main article. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the {{imagequote}} template is a pretty non-standard (I'd even say radical) fix to the problem in the first place, so I don't think there's anything wrong with your remedy, Marc. I wonder if employing that sort of code into the imagequote template might not be a bad idea, since I'm sure this shows up in other places where that template is used? – Scartol • Tok 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I really like your solution more, Marc, and I'm more than a little jealous that I didn't think of it first. It precludes the need to hard-code an image width, and it only requires one variable. Can folks confirm that it looks okay, and I'll go ahead and whip up an imagequote2 template? – Scartol • Tok 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks perfect. But, crumbs, Scartol: you do literature stuff and techie stuff?! That's just so not on. qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Percy Shelley attempted to keep her in the dark.

Is there any believable evidence for this? It is certainly not clear how much Mary Shelley knew about what went on in Naples, but neither is it impossible that she knew everything (when it all came out, she had no hesitation in joining in the cover up, after all, Seymour's belief that she was "probably telling the truth" notwithstanding). It is from Elise that we get the notion that Mary knew nothing, but since we don't necessarily believe Elise on other details, should we believe her on that? Should we believe that babies were being born to either Claire or Elise without Mary Shelley's knowledge? Or if they weren't, then that Shelley was running around town meeting unknown women, having babies registered, baptised, and adopted without her knowledge or suspicion? The day he had the registration and baptism done was the day before the party pulled out of Naples. All Mary Shelley has in her journal for that day is "packed". This is all speculation on my part; but what is not speculation is that we have no evidence, other than Elise's comments, that Mary knew nothing. And though Seymour may believe this, others do not—for example, Holmes says, "On the whole, though, it would appear that Mary probably knew about this baby and Shelley's 'situation' from the time that they were in Naples in December".

We cannot know; and nor can Seymour or Holmes. But certain deductions occur to me. If the baby was Claire's or Elise's, Mary MUST have known that they were pregnant and gave birth in Naples. If the baby was an orphan that Shelley had adopted to console Mary for losing her daughter, Mary must have known—for what would be the point of Shelley doing such a thing without telling her? If the baby was adopted simply out of charity, in order to provide an orphan with a good life and have it brought up and cared for by foster parents, why would Shelley not have told Mary about such a noble act? And why would it be necessary to register it as his own child by Mary (unless they thought that would give the child an even better chance in life)? The only scenario in which it seems to me plausible that Mary would have been kept in the dark is Medwin's story of the unknown woman. Some biographers give credence to Medwin, but for me it is just as likely that Percy Shelley told him this story to deflect him from the real truth, whatever that was (Percy was not very fond of Medwin). qp10qp (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We should take this out then. This whole Naples business is just a mess. (Side note: I think you should write a stripped down MS biography - that way we could see the history, not the melodrama.) Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut. When I was choosing what to include in the article, I tried to avoid as many imponderables as possible—especially about who slept with whom. Unlike the biographers, we are not obliged to put our money on any one particular interpretation of events, thank goodness. qp10qp (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As we have divided MS's works by genre, I am removing this paragraph for the moment. It didn't fit into the section on fiction: "After Valperga, Mary Shelley wrote two dramas, Proserpine and Midas, possibly for a young audience, and a short story, Maurice, for the eleven-year-old daughter of a friend.^[6] The death of Percy Shelley in 1822 made it necessary for her to adopt a more professional approach as a writer. From this time, she took jobbing work as an editor and regularly wrote essays, travel pieces, and reviews for publication. She also often contributed short stories for gift books or annuals, including sixteen for The Keepsake, which was aimed at middle-class women and bound in silk, with gilt-edged pages. In this field, Mary Shelley has been described as a "hack writer", and "wordy and pedestrian". Critic Charlotte Sussman, however, points out that other leading writers of the day took advantage of this profitable market.^[7] Mary Shelley always saw herself, above all, as a novelist. She wrote to Hunt, "I write bad articles which help to make me miserable—but I am going to plunge into a novel and hope that its clear water will wash off the mud of the magazines".^[8]" Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a whole section on "Short stories", drawing from this material and adding more. Awadewit (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is there enough scholarship on the two dramas to justify a "Drama" section? Awadewit (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is, we are (elephant in the room) going to have to cut this article down sooner or later, and scholarship about these two might be high on the list. I really think a passing mention of them is enough for the article. Bennett passes over them quickly enough in her Introduction (two thirds of a paragraph, the last third being on Maurice). qp10qp (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)