Scan barcode
chamomiledaydreams's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
I'm no expert on biographies, but this one seems pretty solid. It's a little on the older side, which means that some of the facts may be outdated; perhaps we know more about Mary Shelley than we did at the time of publication. But Muriel Spark includes enough quotations from diary entries and journals that it's easy to feel confident in her analysis. She shows you the source material then draws relevant conclusions to tell the story of Mary Shelley's life.
The only bit of this text that made me feel critical of Spark's analysis applies to Mary Shelley's sexuality. In discussing Mary Shelley's relationship with the woman who was widowed at the same time as her (Jane Williams), Spark insists that there was no homoeroticism involved and defends Mary Shelley in a manner that rubs me the wrong way. We see quotes from Mary Shelley that read, "I love Jane better than any other human being," and, "Ten years ago I was so ready to give myself away, & being afraid of men, I was apt to get tousy-mousy for women," yet Spark summarizes this relationship by saying, "Mary had been a little in love with Jane, if that phrase can be used about two women without implications of abnormal behavior."
First of all, you can be in love with someone platonically, and perhaps that was the case with Mary Shelley and Jane Williams. Secondly, even if Mary Shelley had been romantically or sexually attracted to Jane, that would not have been "abnormal," and I resent the way that Spark approaches the possibility of queerness. I assume that this wording arises from the datedness of this biography, which was last revised in the late 1980s. Regardless, it is unpleasant to come across such subtle homophobia anywhere.
Another queer topic that Muriel Spark does not adequately approach in my opinion (presumably because this biography is approaching 40 years old) is Mary Shelley's connection to Walter Sholto Douglas. Spark describes Douglas as a woman masquerading as a man simply to help out a friend in need. Yet delving into this person online reveals that he was very likely a trans man. Douglas lived out his life presenting as male whenever possible, even in private spaces such as his own home, and he seems to have been married to his wife for more than just legal benefits.
I was ecstatic to learn about a trans person in history (and in Mary Shelley's life), and while I have no clue how much Shelley knew about Douglas' identity, she did help him forge the proper paperwork to leave the country with his wife, so that paints her as a queer ally in my book.
The second half of this biography is devoted to analyzing some of Mary Shelley's more prominent works, such as "Frankenstein" and "The Last Man." I only know "Frankenstein," so I was interested to learn more about the plots of Mary Shelley's other novels. As for Spark's analysis of "Frankenstein," I'm intrigued by the idea of the creature and Victor representing the conflict of intellect versus emotion, although I'm not sure that I fully agree with that reading. I would need more evidence to convince me.
I'm also not convinced by Spark's explanation for Mary Shelley naming William Frankenstein after her own child. It would be one thing if William Shelley had died before the name was chosen; but he was still alive and kicking when Mary Shelley named a dead fictional child after him. I don't quite believe that this was the result of Mary Shelley subconsciously fearing her son's death. It would be much easier to believe if the explanation were simply, "William is a common name, and Mary Shelley chose it arbitrarily, perhaps as a placeholder in her first novel that she never went back and revised."
Still, I learned a lot from this book, especially concerning Percy Shelley. I've always known him as "Mary Shelley's husband," so it was interesting to delve into his personality a bit more and to learn about his life with Mary. I also learned a bit more about Lord Byron, which made me like him even less. All in all, my opinion of Percy Shelley improved; my opinion of Lord Byron continues to decline; and my already high opinion of Mary Shelley remains the same.
The only bit of this text that made me feel critical of Spark's analysis applies to Mary Shelley's sexuality. In discussing Mary Shelley's relationship with the woman who was widowed at the same time as her (Jane Williams), Spark insists that there was no homoeroticism involved and defends Mary Shelley in a manner that rubs me the wrong way. We see quotes from Mary Shelley that read, "I love Jane better than any other human being," and, "Ten years ago I was so ready to give myself away, & being afraid of men, I was apt to get tousy-mousy for women," yet Spark summarizes this relationship by saying, "Mary had been a little in love with Jane, if that phrase can be used about two women without implications of abnormal behavior."
First of all, you can be in love with someone platonically, and perhaps that was the case with Mary Shelley and Jane Williams. Secondly, even if Mary Shelley had been romantically or sexually attracted to Jane, that would not have been "abnormal," and I resent the way that Spark approaches the possibility of queerness. I assume that this wording arises from the datedness of this biography, which was last revised in the late 1980s. Regardless, it is unpleasant to come across such subtle homophobia anywhere.
Another queer topic that Muriel Spark does not adequately approach in my opinion (presumably because this biography is approaching 40 years old) is Mary Shelley's connection to Walter Sholto Douglas. Spark describes Douglas as a woman masquerading as a man simply to help out a friend in need. Yet delving into this person online reveals that he was very likely a trans man. Douglas lived out his life presenting as male whenever possible, even in private spaces such as his own home, and he seems to have been married to his wife for more than just legal benefits.
I was ecstatic to learn about a trans person in history (and in Mary Shelley's life), and while I have no clue how much Shelley knew about Douglas' identity, she did help him forge the proper paperwork to leave the country with his wife, so that paints her as a queer ally in my book.
The second half of this biography is devoted to analyzing some of Mary Shelley's more prominent works, such as "Frankenstein" and "The Last Man." I only know "Frankenstein," so I was interested to learn more about the plots of Mary Shelley's other novels. As for Spark's analysis of "Frankenstein," I'm intrigued by the idea of the creature and Victor representing the conflict of intellect versus emotion, although I'm not sure that I fully agree with that reading. I would need more evidence to convince me.
I'm also not convinced by Spark's explanation for Mary Shelley naming William Frankenstein after her own child. It would be one thing if William Shelley had died before the name was chosen; but he was still alive and kicking when Mary Shelley named a dead fictional child after him. I don't quite believe that this was the result of Mary Shelley subconsciously fearing her son's death. It would be much easier to believe if the explanation were simply, "William is a common name, and Mary Shelley chose it arbitrarily, perhaps as a placeholder in her first novel that she never went back and revised."
Still, I learned a lot from this book, especially concerning Percy Shelley. I've always known him as "Mary Shelley's husband," so it was interesting to delve into his personality a bit more and to learn about his life with Mary. I also learned a bit more about Lord Byron, which made me like him even less. All in all, my opinion of Percy Shelley improved; my opinion of Lord Byron continues to decline; and my already high opinion of Mary Shelley remains the same.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death
Minor: Homophobia
lizmart88's review
3.0
"I love Frankenstein and knew almost nothing about Mary Shelley. She was definitely a radical woman for her times! As the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, I would expect nothing less. She met and fell in love with Percy Shelley while he was still married - they ran off together anyway.
Along the way, she endured much heartbreak over several miscarriages, stillbirths, and children dying very young. She had one son who survived to adulthood.
Excellent read!"
Along the way, she endured much heartbreak over several miscarriages, stillbirths, and children dying very young. She had one son who survived to adulthood.
Excellent read!"
nearit's review against another edition
4.0
Perhaps too measured and only partially integrates art and biography - in the end, this amounts to a powerful act of channelling.
zahirahz's review against another edition
4.0
Not sure if I would call this a biography. It’s more like Mary’s letters intersperse with commentaries. Only half is about Mary while the other half is analysis of a few of her works. But still a good intro to life of the author. I enjoyed her letters.
craftmomma55's review against another edition
4.0
Category; a biography. I enjoyed this. It was a pretty easy read, which I always find refreshing in biographies. They can get so scholarly that they are hard to read.
More...