What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary
Mary Wollstonecraft was an 18th century British philosopher, writer and feminist. Her best known work was A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. She also wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Wollstonecraft believed that women and men should be treated as equal rational beings and that women only appear to be inferior because of their lack of education. Mary was the wife of philosopher William Godwin and the mother of Mary Shelley who was the author of Frankenstein. In this novel Mary flees her young husband in order to nurse her dearest friend, Ann, and finds genuine love.
86 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1788
About the author
Mary Wollstonecraft
566 books1,034 followersMary Wollstonecraft was an eighteenth century British writer, philosopher, and feminist. Among the general public and specifically among feminists, Wollstonecraft's life has received much more attention than her writing because of her unconventional, and often tumultuous, personal relationships. After two ill-fated affairs, with Henry Fuseli and Gilbert Imlay, Wollstonecraft married the philosopher William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement; they had one daughter, Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein. Wollstonecraft died at the age of thirty-eight due to complications from childbirth, leaving behind several unfinished manuscripts.
During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason.
After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing her unorthodox lifestyle, which inadvertently destroyed her reputation for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly important. Today Wollstonecraft is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers, and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences.
Information courtesy of Wikipedia.org
During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason.
After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing her unorthodox lifestyle, which inadvertently destroyed her reputation for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly important. Today Wollstonecraft is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers, and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences.
Information courtesy of Wikipedia.org
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
January 27, 2015
This is a fascinating story if you read it from the perspective of intellectual history, in the context of its times and as a reflection of Mary Wollstonecraft's evolving ideas. Inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's conviction that geniuses are self-taught, but in defiance of his poorly-drawn, two-dimensional woman characters, the story presents a self-taught female genius, Mary. The heroine's tragic plight -- by the end, the anticipation of dying young almost seems like a happy ending -- proves how women under both the British system of law and cultural norms of the time were shackled rather than enriched by marriage.
Much of Wollstonecraft's own experiences and acquaintances make their way into this tale. Because she's using the trappings of "sentimental literature" to criticize sentimentalism and the "cult of sensibility" (which she believed damaged women by elevating emotion over reason), her work falls into some of the same problems as the very genre she's attacking. This can make for a difficult read for contemporary audiences, what with the fainting and the weeping and such. But in a way, that's part of the point.
Wollstonecraft herself later said this novel was laughable. It isn't, though. It's a deeply humane character study and a bold interrogation of notions of masculinity, femininity, and "proper" relationships. Most importantly, it anticipates some of Wollstonecraft's signature and revolutionary themes, such as the "slavery of marriage" and the lack of suitable occupations and professional opportunities for women. It's well worth reading for a window into Wollstonecraft's subversive and remarkable mind.
Much of Wollstonecraft's own experiences and acquaintances make their way into this tale. Because she's using the trappings of "sentimental literature" to criticize sentimentalism and the "cult of sensibility" (which she believed damaged women by elevating emotion over reason), her work falls into some of the same problems as the very genre she's attacking. This can make for a difficult read for contemporary audiences, what with the fainting and the weeping and such. But in a way, that's part of the point.
Wollstonecraft herself later said this novel was laughable. It isn't, though. It's a deeply humane character study and a bold interrogation of notions of masculinity, femininity, and "proper" relationships. Most importantly, it anticipates some of Wollstonecraft's signature and revolutionary themes, such as the "slavery of marriage" and the lack of suitable occupations and professional opportunities for women. It's well worth reading for a window into Wollstonecraft's subversive and remarkable mind.
January 23, 2018
I notice a lot of the negative reviews of this novel focus on Mary as a character, her self-absorption and 'obsession with herself' - I can't help but disagree. Mary is a fundamentally selfless character, consistently (naively) hopeful that others will behave as well to her as she does to them. That Mary Wollstonecraft has constructed the character around herself is not inherently negative. How many men, particularly in the 18th Century, write characters where they obsessively consider their own virtues, and those of other men around them. If the author and protagonist were not women I think this book would be held in much higher regard. The novel is, in essence, a deep character study, and simply because the character in question is a woman confident of her own intellect, reason, passion and goodness, does not negate the successes of the narrative. Mary's story is one of profound tragedy, heightened by the circumstances her gender relegates her into, which only adds to the irony of so much reader dismissal on account of her personality. A male character, becoming romantically interested in Mary, is surprised by her: 'In Mary's company he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine, and almost forgot that he had called the sex "the pretty play things that render life intolerable". This quote alone indicates the importance of Mary's self-insertion of her own experiences; many men at the time simply did not consider women to be anything more than sexual objects, incapable of rational thought or intellect. 'Mary: A Fiction' is a celebration of the rich internal life of an intelligent, unfortunate young woman of the time.
Read
April 12, 2025Mary Wollstonecraft quedes apuntada a la meva llista de senyores desquiciades que hem patit per amor
November 16, 2021
Very hard to know how to rate this in 2021. Wollstonecraft is simply brilliant and far ahead of her time. I can't imagine giving this, or any of her works, fewer than 5 stars. I found this challenging to get through, because the writing was definitely tailor made for folks in the 1700s. For me, it was not as pleasurable or effortless as it was reading Margaret Cavendish's Blazing World from the 1600s. That was far more digestible and easy to get lost in the pages that were so filled with imagery and wild ideas. Cavendish's novel was a wild and strange sort of biography with lots of metaphor dressed up as fiction. Wollstonecraft's fictionalized version of her life was not as much fictionalized as it was an illustration of her previous, and immensely important work, Vindication of the Rights of Women. It was meant to make that work more digestible, and indeed she succeeded in that regard. It deserves 5 stars for its sheer championing of women in a time when that was an extremely isolating and difficult task.
May 8, 2023
klasik bir roman gibi düşünmemek lazım, dönemin ölçülerine ve beklentilerine uyarak ilginç bir kadın portresi sunulmuş, Lou Salome'nin iki romanında da aynı şey vardı, yazar daha özgür düşünceli, zihni açık bir kadının var olabileceğini ispatlamak, böyle bir kadının ruhundan, davranışlarından ve kişiliğinden bahsetmek istiyor sanki...
June 23, 2016
I've come to the conclusion that I love what Mary Wollstonecraft has to say. Her writing, not so much.
June 8, 2022
mary🤩the emotions🥺the imagery🤩the sublime🥺
May 28, 2025
[this review is a mess. i could write a thesis about this]
this woman had balls. if instead of Mary the main character was named James and if instead of dealing with the female experience it dealt with the male experience, this novel would be celebrated and applauded. but unfortunately it is not. yes sure it’s not perfect – sometimes (as i believe it tends to happen with Wollstonecraft) her way of criticizing her social and intellectual surroundings by exaggeratedly emulating them is flawed – but nothing is perfect!!
it was mid-18th century and this WOMAN was screaming that marriage was a type of slavery for women!!!!
ah and those who think the main character, Mary, is too much like the author, Mary Wollstonecraft, should re-read the book! bestie is telling her tragic life story and showing us how selfless she was BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ROLE SOCIETY WANTED HER TO PLAY AND EVEN THOUGH SHE TRIED TO RUN AWAY FROM IT SHE COULDN’T BECAUSE IT IS OKAY TO BE SELFLESS AND CARING AS WELL AS INTELLIGENT AND “WOKE”
“she looked for hope; but found none”
this woman had balls. if instead of Mary the main character was named James and if instead of dealing with the female experience it dealt with the male experience, this novel would be celebrated and applauded. but unfortunately it is not. yes sure it’s not perfect – sometimes (as i believe it tends to happen with Wollstonecraft) her way of criticizing her social and intellectual surroundings by exaggeratedly emulating them is flawed – but nothing is perfect!!
it was mid-18th century and this WOMAN was screaming that marriage was a type of slavery for women!!!!
ah and those who think the main character, Mary, is too much like the author, Mary Wollstonecraft, should re-read the book! bestie is telling her tragic life story and showing us how selfless she was BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ROLE SOCIETY WANTED HER TO PLAY AND EVEN THOUGH SHE TRIED TO RUN AWAY FROM IT SHE COULDN’T BECAUSE IT IS OKAY TO BE SELFLESS AND CARING AS WELL AS INTELLIGENT AND “WOKE”
“she looked for hope; but found none”
June 25, 2024
I think a lot of the ideas went over my head. Wollstonecraft responds to a lot of contextual theological, philosophical, and psychological ideas which I’m totally unfamiliar with. Solid story though.
September 3, 2026
mary wollstonecraft had many talents but subtlety was never one of them
May 27, 2024
nicht schrecklich aber tbh she should've sticked to non-fiction
October 4, 2026
I did it. Completed a "classic" to break up my tear through modern literature (e.g., romantasy), albeit only 68 tiny pages. There were many, many sentiments by Wollstonecraft that I highlighted throughout the book, whether I myself resonated with Mary or simply appreciated her beautiful (often tragic) manner of writing. Despite Mary writing Mary: A Fiction 238 years ago, the heart of girlhood and womanhood is strikingly obvious on the page. Biggest shocker of all to me: this is Mary Shelley's (author of Frankenstein) mother! If you aren't familiar with feminist, revolutionary icon Wollstonecraft, her Wikipedia is worth a perusal. She was a non-conformer whose literary and political successes were overshadowed by the big no-nos of the time like adultery or encouraging her unhappy sister to leave her husband. Ironically, some of Wollstonecraft's taboo behaviors will still get you shunned or marked by society as improper today. There are apparently more famous writings of hers that I should consider reading in the future (a modern woman can only stomach so much 18th century romantic language). Spoilers to follow.
"Fictional Mary" (with Fiction in quotes since much of this novel was actually autobiographical) has a life filled with strife: the woman cannot catch a break. Mom dies, dad dies shortly after arranging her into a passionless marriage, best friend dies, and then finally, after she meets someone she comes to love, he dies as well. I felt for Mary throughout the book and I wish that women of the time had more of a say in, hmmm, something like who they are going to be bound to in marriage. Alas, Mary is stuck married to this man whom we literally only meet twice on the page, I believe. Honestly, the saving grace is that of all the men she was forced to marry, she was able to avoid him and do her own thing which entailed caring for all those around her, even the impoverished who proceeded to make her ill with a fever... The theme that comes to mind in Mary is, "Tis Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" (thank you, Lord Tennyson). I am glad that despite all her sufferings, Mary got to fall in sweet, innocent love with a man who cherished her mind above all else. Their brief romance was so pure, emphasized by only two chaste hugs and maybe one hand holding. One part that touched my heart in particular was Henry's dying wish that his mother befriend and not abandon Mary when he passed on. I don't think that was the case; I think both Mary and Henry's mother went their separate ways, with the latter jealous of the former due to her own unresolved issues...
In my flip through of highlighted or underlined quotes, here were my numerous favorites from Mary: A Fiction:
- With reference to The Platonic Marriage, a book Wollstonecraft references within the opening chapter and apparently, thanks to the Explanatory Notes, I now know that she criticizes through this very novel:
- Juxtaposition of Mary’s chasteness with her appreciation for romantic novels:
- On Mary’s deadbeat, sexist father (status quo for the times, if I am to generalize 18th century fathers) who sought to keep women obedient, subdued, and skill-less; again, Mary drew from inspiration of her very own father who apparently would beat her mother:
- Mary on the topic of imaginary friends when you yourself have few or none:
- Mary on the topic of a loveless family which she flees (true to her own life story in 1778):
- Mary on not being able to find love on earth:
- Mary on familial rejection shaping one’s character:
- Mary on the dissatisfaction and embarrassment brought on from an unbalanced friendship with reference to Ann (and perhaps Fanny Blood in her real life); Ann’s sensibility (or lack thereof) is shocking to Mary, a deep feeler, who does not want affection to be superficially returned out of the duty of friendship but rather wishes to be met with the same verve that comes so naturally to Mary:
- On falling in love with Henry and how Mary blossoms:
- Henry, indirectly professing love for Mary followed quickly by Mary, indirectly professing love for Henry and simultaneously dissing her husband:
- Mary on loving halfway and passion:
- There’s no feeling like appreciation from your beloved:
- Henry’s offer:
- Mary’s plight:
- Mary’s solace:
"Fictional Mary" (with Fiction in quotes since much of this novel was actually autobiographical) has a life filled with strife: the woman cannot catch a break. Mom dies, dad dies shortly after arranging her into a passionless marriage, best friend dies, and then finally, after she meets someone she comes to love, he dies as well. I felt for Mary throughout the book and I wish that women of the time had more of a say in, hmmm, something like who they are going to be bound to in marriage. Alas, Mary is stuck married to this man whom we literally only meet twice on the page, I believe. Honestly, the saving grace is that of all the men she was forced to marry, she was able to avoid him and do her own thing which entailed caring for all those around her, even the impoverished who proceeded to make her ill with a fever... The theme that comes to mind in Mary is, "Tis Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" (thank you, Lord Tennyson). I am glad that despite all her sufferings, Mary got to fall in sweet, innocent love with a man who cherished her mind above all else. Their brief romance was so pure, emphasized by only two chaste hugs and maybe one hand holding. One part that touched my heart in particular was Henry's dying wish that his mother befriend and not abandon Mary when he passed on. I don't think that was the case; I think both Mary and Henry's mother went their separate ways, with the latter jealous of the former due to her own unresolved issues...
In my flip through of highlighted or underlined quotes, here were my numerous favorites from Mary: A Fiction:
- With reference to The Platonic Marriage, a book Wollstonecraft references within the opening chapter and apparently, thanks to the Explanatory Notes, I now know that she criticizes through this very novel:
"She planted, in imitation of those susceptible souls, a rose bush; but there was not a lover to weep in concert with her, when she watered it with her tears. -- Alas! Alas! (pg. 3)
- Juxtaposition of Mary’s chasteness with her appreciation for romantic novels:
“She was chaste, according to the vulgar acceptation of the world, that is, she did not make any actual faux pas; she feared the world, and was indolent; but then, to make amends for this seeming self-denial, she read all the sentimental novels, dwelt on the love-scenes… (pg. 3)
- On Mary’s deadbeat, sexist father (status quo for the times, if I am to generalize 18th century fathers) who sought to keep women obedient, subdued, and skill-less; again, Mary drew from inspiration of her very own father who apparently would beat her mother:
“Her father always exclaimed against female acquirements, and was glad that his wife’s indolence and ill health made her not trouble herself about them. (pg. 5)
- Mary on the topic of imaginary friends when you yourself have few or none:
”The wandering spirits, which she imagined inhabited every part of nature, were her constant friends and confidants.” (pg. 5)
- Mary on the topic of a loveless family which she flees (true to her own life story in 1778):
”Could she have loved her father or mother, had they returned her affection, she would not so soon, perhaps, have sought out a new world. (pg. 5)
- Mary on not being able to find love on earth:
”Her sensibility prompted her to search for an object to love; on earth it was not to be found…” (pg. 5)
- Mary on familial rejection shaping one’s character:
”SHe had once, or twice, told her little secrets to her mother; they were laughed at, and she determined never to do it again. In this manner was she left to reflect on her own feelings; and so strengthened were they by being meditated on, that her character early became singular and permanent. Her understanding was strong and clear, when not clouded by her feelings; but she was too much the creature of impulse, and the slave of compassion.” (pg. 7)
- Mary on the dissatisfaction and embarrassment brought on from an unbalanced friendship with reference to Ann (and perhaps Fanny Blood in her real life); Ann’s sensibility (or lack thereof) is shocking to Mary, a deep feeler, who does not want affection to be superficially returned out of the duty of friendship but rather wishes to be met with the same verve that comes so naturally to Mary:
“When her friend was all the world to her, she found she was not as necessary to her happiness; and her delicate mind could not bear to obtrude her affection, or receive love as an alms, the offspring of pity. Very frequently has she ran to her with delight, and not perceiving any thing of the same kind in Ann’s countenance, she has shrunk back; and, falling from one extreme into the other, instead of a warm greeting that was just slipping from her tongue, her expressions seemed to be dictated by the most chilling insensibility.” (pg. 8)
- On falling in love with Henry and how Mary blossoms:
”When she conversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves; genius animated her expressive countenance; and the most graceful, unaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse…Mary could not help thinking that in his company her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface” (pg. 27)
- Henry, indirectly professing love for Mary followed quickly by Mary, indirectly professing love for Henry and simultaneously dissing her husband:
”yet I cannot dissuade you [from leaving]; if I attempted to do it, I should ill deserve the title I wish to merit [her husband?]. I only think of your happiness; could I obey the strongest impulse of my heart, I should accompany thee to England; but such a step might endanger your future peace.’ Mary, then, with all the frankness which marked her character, explained her situation to him, and mentioned her fatal tie with such disgust that he trembled for her. ‘I cannot see him; he is not the man formed for me to love!” (pg. 39)
- Mary on loving halfway and passion:
”she knew she was beloved; and could she forget that such a man loved her, or rest satisfied with any inferior gratification. When passion first enters the heart, it is only a return of affection that is sought after, and every other remembrance and wish is blotted out.” (pg. 41)
- There’s no feeling like appreciation from your beloved:
”She delighted to receive benefits through the medium of her fellow creatures; but to receive them from Henry was exquisite pleasure.” (pg. 59)
- Henry’s offer:
”Could I but offer thee an asylum in these arms -- a faithful bosom, in which thou couldst repose all thy griefs -- He pressed her to it, and she returned the pressure-- he felt her throbbing heart.” (pg 61)
- Mary’s plight:
”Soon -- yes, very soon, will the grave again receive all I love! And the remnant of my days -- she could not proceed -- Were there then days to come after that?” (pg. 63)
- Mary’s solace:
”In moments of solitary sadness, a gleam of joy would dart across her mind -- She thought she was hastening to that world where there is neither marrying, nor giving in marriage. END” (pg. 68)
September 7, 2022
While I have to admit that Mary pretty much fails as a novel--it's too straightforwardly didactic and expositional, without any of the description, scenes, or dialogue to really draw a reader into the artificial reality of the world in which the tale takes place--it rather worked for me as a portrait of a frustrated mind unable, because of the social norms of the time, to procure an education and altogether too sensible (that is empathic and sensitive to suffering and injustice) to suffer a social world of boorish, materialist louts that is not at all confined to 17th century Britan. In that I took joy, feeling as I do about those topics. However the heroine's consolation in Christianity, with its incessant focus on stoic passivity and melancholic yearning for death, is just depressing and I see as the Occidental world's strongest hobbling factor--such thinking and the incessant surrender that it produces has held us back from revolution and all kinds of melioration for far too long. It even threatens to drag us back into a mire of superstition and barbarity today, particularly in the U.S.A. So there the book lost me. I rather liked the somewhat stilted but interesting diction as well. I found it rather elegant without being too difficult to parse.
November 15, 2021
On the first glance this seems to be a very shallow novel without a deep plot or realistic characters. But the book is not about the plot rather than the emotions conveyed in it. Also the authors use of quotes from other texts and how she manages to embed then in her story really fascinated me. A good, short read that portrays very well that Wollstonecraft knew what she was doing as an author.
November 25, 2025
Honestly quite forgettable...
January 20, 2019
The author has particularly disliked novels because she believed they had a devastating effect on the women who read them, making them even more submissive to men. This book was written in response to the sentimental novels that were particularly popular then, as a model of how novels should be realistic and useful in women's development. The result is an interesting different approach to literature, with the story of a woman who differs from all the others as she grows up reading the right books and thus gains a dynamic and independent character, but this independence is not complete due to the non- systematic education. In other words, the author creates a story to express her views. The problem, however, is that the writer is trying harder to prove a point than to write literature, so the book suffers from a lack of emotion, direction and ideas and seems to be incomplete.
Η συγγραφέας αντιπαθούσε ιδιαίτερα τα μυθιστορήματα γιατί πίστευε ότι είχαν καταστροφική επίδραση στις γυναίκες που τα διάβαζαν, κάνοντάς τες ακόμα περισσότερο υποταγμένες στους άνδρες. Αυτό το βιβλίο το έγραψε ως αντίδραση στα συναισθηματικά μυθιστορήματα που ήταν ιδιαίτερα δημοφιλή τότε, ως ένα υπόδειγμα του πως θα έπρεπε να είναι τα μυθιστορήματά ώστε να είναι ρεαλιστικά και χρήσιμα στην ανάπτυξη των γυναικών. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μία ενδιαφέρουσα διαφορετική προσέγγιση στη λογοτεχνία, με την ιστορία μιας γυναίκας που διαφέρει από όλες τις άλλες καθώς μεγαλώνοντας διαβάζοντας τα σωστά βιβλία και έτσι απέκτησε έναν χαρακτήρα δυναμικό και ανεξάρτητο, με αυτήν την ανεξαρτησία, όμως, να μην είναι ολοκληρωμένη εξαιτίας της μη συστηματικής εκπαίδευσης της. Με άλλα λόγια η συγγραφέας δημιουργεί μία ιστορία ώστε μέσα από αυτήν να εκφράσει τις απόψεις της. Το πρόβλημα, όμως, είναι ότι η συγγραφέας προσπαθεί πολύ περισσότερο να αποδείξει κάτι παρά να γράψει λογοτεχνία, έτσι το βιβλίο πάσχει από έλλειψη συναισθήματος, κατεύθυνσης και ιδεών και μοιάζει να μένει στο τέλος ανολοκλήρωτο.
Η συγγραφέας αντιπαθούσε ιδιαίτερα τα μυθιστορήματα γιατί πίστευε ότι είχαν καταστροφική επίδραση στις γυναίκες που τα διάβαζαν, κάνοντάς τες ακόμα περισσότερο υποταγμένες στους άνδρες. Αυτό το βιβλίο το έγραψε ως αντίδραση στα συναισθηματικά μυθιστορήματα που ήταν ιδιαίτερα δημοφιλή τότε, ως ένα υπόδειγμα του πως θα έπρεπε να είναι τα μυθιστορήματά ώστε να είναι ρεαλιστικά και χρήσιμα στην ανάπτυξη των γυναικών. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μία ενδιαφέρουσα διαφορετική προσέγγιση στη λογοτεχνία, με την ιστορία μιας γυναίκας που διαφέρει από όλες τις άλλες καθώς μεγαλώνοντας διαβάζοντας τα σωστά βιβλία και έτσι απέκτησε έναν χαρακτήρα δυναμικό και ανεξάρτητο, με αυτήν την ανεξαρτησία, όμως, να μην είναι ολοκληρωμένη εξαιτίας της μη συστηματικής εκπαίδευσης της. Με άλλα λόγια η συγγραφέας δημιουργεί μία ιστορία ώστε μέσα από αυτήν να εκφράσει τις απόψεις της. Το πρόβλημα, όμως, είναι ότι η συγγραφέας προσπαθεί πολύ περισσότερο να αποδείξει κάτι παρά να γράψει λογοτεχνία, έτσι το βιβλίο πάσχει από έλλειψη συναισθήματος, κατεύθυνσης και ιδεών και μοιάζει να μένει στο τέλος ανολοκλήρωτο.
February 24, 2023
nice bit boring tho slightly feminist which is lovely
March 18, 2025
«Li encantava estar en companyia d'homes lúcids, cosa que li permetia perfeccionar les seves facultats. No es trobava gaire sovint en companyia de gent així, perquè són d'una espècie rara».
May 13, 2026
'Mary: A Fiction' is one of the only finished novels that Mary Wollstonecraft wrote during her career. It centers around Mary, who is neglected by her own parents and becomes a self-taught genius, advocating for the superiority of reason over sensibility. What I found especially interesting and entertaining was Mary's refreshing aversion to marriage and to her own husband in particular. Neglecting the death-of-the-author-paradigm for a second - sorry y'all – this aversion must be allusion to the author (apart from the name), who also strongly opposed any traditional way of living, including marriage.
Although i much prefer the writings of her daughter, this was nevertheless an entertaining read!
Although i much prefer the writings of her daughter, this was nevertheless an entertaining read!
December 2, 2023
Mary is so real for hating her husband
September 24, 2016
Summary: The main character, who the writer named after herself, is superior to everyone.
There are long long long passages about how crappy everybody is, even her best friend.
5 paragraphs describing people who have no importance in the story whatsoever, and are only really talked about in these 5 paragraphs:
"When I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;
and it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on
them; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention
that they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The
daughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the
mother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.
They were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient
family, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they
took care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's
airs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning
propriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which
always hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing
that was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not
done before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when
this question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without
the trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.
This same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most
harmonic dance around her.
After this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had
received very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and
Spanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?
Hamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they
squalled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds
sown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,
they were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded
in, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to
captivate Lords.
They were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,
occasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we
except her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;
and these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously
adhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some
trivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of
which she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable
world so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the
sun.
It appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,
of the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of
weak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls."
Narrow souls!?
"The Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.
Johnson would have said, "They have the least mind.". And can such serve
their Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish
ceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not
conquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized
their hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is
unknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term
ornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for
mental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.
Could the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she
turned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.
Henry"
"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these
raptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by
what strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature
escape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it
is only to be felt; it escapes discussion."
"As she passed through the streets in an
hackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met
some women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,
made her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow
creatures!... "
And then she says! and then she says! look:
" Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded
by ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth."
Too well have you loved!? You are consumed with hate, Mary.
You aren't supposed to do something for the sake of gratitude and a place in heaven. Jeeze.
She also mentions about 4 times that marriage sucks, fair enough.
There are long long long passages about how crappy everybody is, even her best friend.
5 paragraphs describing people who have no importance in the story whatsoever, and are only really talked about in these 5 paragraphs:
"When I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;
and it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on
them; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention
that they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The
daughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the
mother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.
They were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient
family, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they
took care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's
airs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning
propriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which
always hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing
that was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not
done before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when
this question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without
the trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.
This same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most
harmonic dance around her.
After this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had
received very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and
Spanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?
Hamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they
squalled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds
sown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,
they were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded
in, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to
captivate Lords.
They were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,
occasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we
except her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;
and these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously
adhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some
trivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of
which she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable
world so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the
sun.
It appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,
of the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of
weak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls."
Narrow souls!?
"The Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.
Johnson would have said, "They have the least mind.". And can such serve
their Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish
ceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not
conquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized
their hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is
unknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term
ornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for
mental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.
Could the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she
turned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.
Henry"
"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these
raptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by
what strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature
escape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it
is only to be felt; it escapes discussion."
"As she passed through the streets in an
hackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met
some women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,
made her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow
creatures!... "
And then she says! and then she says! look:
" Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded
by ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth."
Too well have you loved!? You are consumed with hate, Mary.
You aren't supposed to do something for the sake of gratitude and a place in heaven. Jeeze.
She also mentions about 4 times that marriage sucks, fair enough.
April 8, 2025
awful reading experience. read maria and the wrongs of woman instead for that delightful wollstonecraftian prose with a more bearable plot (if you must)
November 4, 2020
Βαθμολογία: 5/10
Δυστυχώς, μια από τις πιο αδιάφορες και ίσως κουραστικές αναγνώσεις της χρονιάς. Η Μαίρη Γουόλστονκραφτ σαν δοκιμιογράφος μπορεί να ήταν μπροστά για την εποχή της και σαν γυναίκα σίγουρα ξεχώριζε από τις υπόλοιπες για τις ιδέες και τον τρόπο σκέψης της, όμως το μικρό αυτό μυθιστόρημα (ή νουβέλα, ανάλογα πώς το βλέπει κανείς) δεν λειτούργησε και πολύ καλά. Θα ήταν σαφώς προτιμότερο να αναλύσει τις ιδέες της σε ένα δοκίμιο. Η πλοκή αδιάφορη και διχασμένη -περισσότερο λειτουργεί σαν εργαλείο για να αναπτύξει η συγγραφέας τις σκέψεις της για τη θέση των γυναικών, για τις σχέσεις ανάμεσα στα δυο φύλα κλπ-, οι χαρακτήρες μονοδιάστατοι και βαρετοί, ενώ και η γραφή δεν μου έκανε κάποια εντύπωση (αν και, εντάξει, είναι και μιας κάποιας ηλικίας!). Τέλος πάντων, υπάρχουν κάποια θετικά στοιχεία που έχουν να κάνουν με τις ιδέες της Γουόλστονκραφτ για τον κόσμο γύρω της, ενώ παίρνουμε και λίγο μάτι από τα ήθη και έθιμα της εποχής της, αλλά μέχρι εκεί.
Υ.Γ. Όσον αφορά την ελληνική έκδοση (Χίμαιρα), είναι άψογη. Του χρόνου σίγουρα θα διαβάσω το "Οι περιπέτειες του Κέιλεμπ Γουίλιαμς" του αναρχικού πολιτικού φιλοσόφου και συζύγου της Γουόλστονκραφτ, Γουίλιαμ Γκόντγουιν (κυκλοφορεί από τις ίδιες εκδόσεις και με περιμένει υπομονετικά τόσους μήνες).
Δυστυχώς, μια από τις πιο αδιάφορες και ίσως κουραστικές αναγνώσεις της χρονιάς. Η Μαίρη Γουόλστονκραφτ σαν δοκιμιογράφος μπορεί να ήταν μπροστά για την εποχή της και σαν γυναίκα σίγουρα ξεχώριζε από τις υπόλοιπες για τις ιδέες και τον τρόπο σκέψης της, όμως το μικρό αυτό μυθιστόρημα (ή νουβέλα, ανάλογα πώς το βλέπει κανείς) δεν λειτούργησε και πολύ καλά. Θα ήταν σαφώς προτιμότερο να αναλύσει τις ιδέες της σε ένα δοκίμιο. Η πλοκή αδιάφορη και διχασμένη -περισσότερο λειτουργεί σαν εργαλείο για να αναπτύξει η συγγραφέας τις σκέψεις της για τη θέση των γυναικών, για τις σχέσεις ανάμεσα στα δυο φύλα κλπ-, οι χαρακτήρες μονοδιάστατοι και βαρετοί, ενώ και η γραφή δεν μου έκανε κάποια εντύπωση (αν και, εντάξει, είναι και μιας κάποιας ηλικίας!). Τέλος πάντων, υπάρχουν κάποια θετικά στοιχεία που έχουν να κάνουν με τις ιδέες της Γουόλστονκραφτ για τον κόσμο γύρω της, ενώ παίρνουμε και λίγο μάτι από τα ήθη και έθιμα της εποχής της, αλλά μέχρι εκεί.
Υ.Γ. Όσον αφορά την ελληνική έκδοση (Χίμαιρα), είναι άψογη. Του χρόνου σίγουρα θα διαβάσω το "Οι περιπέτειες του Κέιλεμπ Γουίλιαμς" του αναρχικού πολιτικού φιλοσόφου και συζύγου της Γουόλστονκραφτ, Γουίλιαμ Γκόντγουιν (κυκλοφορεί από τις ίδιες εκδόσεις και με περιμένει υπομονετικά τόσους μήνες).
February 9, 2018
I have to agree with Wollstonecraft's later opinion that this is not a strong work. It's absolutely worth reading to see the beginnings of her later political ideas, but as a work of fiction it's just not great. It's quite muddled and ambivalent, despite being an incredibly tragic narrative. This term is often misused and I don't think it could be properly applied to this text, but the only thing I kept thinking of over and over while reading this is that Mary is a, well, Mary Sue. It unfortunately really read like Wollstonecraft's personal fantasy, which is interesting in order to learn more about Wollstonecraft, but is pretty lame as a fiction.
July 23, 2019
Fascinating glimpse into Mary Wollstonecraft's life - for surely much of this is drawn from her own life. What is lacking (is it even known?) is how much of the detail maps to her own experience. For instance was her journey back from Libson similar, did Fanny Blood die while crossing the room, in Mary W's arms? If these details can be confirmed via diaries and letters, then a new edition would be more than justified!
I read the Penguin Classic edition, with a forward by Janet Todd
Read this as an interlude to Romantic Outlaws by Charlotte Gordon.
I read the Penguin Classic edition, with a forward by Janet Todd
Read this as an interlude to Romantic Outlaws by Charlotte Gordon.
February 3, 2019
Wollstonecraft sets out to tell the story of of a woman who differs from others generally portrayed in novels of the 18th century. In this she succeeds. The main character, Mary, is both empathetic and intelligent, and doesn't hide her contempt of forced marriage or other follies of society. Except for the essaying on religion, enlightenment and romantic ideas, the story seems modern. Mary is like modern feminists who can be blunt and 'tell it like it is.' I recommend this book highly.
September 10, 2013
Thoroughly enjoyed this short novel; I fell in love with the protagonist early on (despite her being self-indulgently woeful!) and willed her to be happy in life.
A great window into womens' lives in the 18th century too.
A great window into womens' lives in the 18th century too.
June 14, 2023
Written by Mary Shelley's mother, this book was a drama about a young woman's romantic friendships. Romantic friendships were close but typically non-sexual relationships between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in contemporary Western societies. It may include, for example, holding hands, cuddling, hugging, kissing, giving massages, or sharing a bed, without sexual intercourse or other sexual expression.
In this book, Mary (the character, not the author nor her daughter, also named Mary) has a romantic friendship with a female first, and then with a male, mostly while dodging a husband she despised (and frankly, didn't know). Mary's father entered her into marriage with a man she didn't know to keep the property from being divided up. Fortunately for Mary (I guess), the husband wasn't terribly keen on marriage either, and departed immediately for the continent to do other things.
Mary (again, the character) is a self-taught genius, from an idea that most geniuses are self-taught, rising above and beyond basic education. This is from a time when the word "genius" was only then starting to take on its modern meaning that we use it for. Mary is a rational and sensible creature, and is actually coded "masculine" (for the time) in many of her mannerisms. Her romantic friends, both the male and the female, are coded "feminine" (for the time) in their weaknesses and delicacy. Both relationships are a bit erotic, but not sexual. Indeed, the strong female character she offers here is often regarded as a first for novels.
The author Mary felt that marriage enchained geniuses rather than enriched them, so this novel also functioned as a critique of marriage.
The writing itself is weak, and overblown in its language, but it attempts to depict a liberated and reasoning female genius. Many experts consider it a milestone in feminist literature. I've been trying (this year and last) to dive into some of Mary Shelley's influences and surroundings, so this was the first time I ever read anything written by her mother, a well-known 18th century feminist. Wollstonecraft is best known for "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (which I haven't read yet), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason. This book is a step in that direction.
In this book, Mary (the character, not the author nor her daughter, also named Mary) has a romantic friendship with a female first, and then with a male, mostly while dodging a husband she despised (and frankly, didn't know). Mary's father entered her into marriage with a man she didn't know to keep the property from being divided up. Fortunately for Mary (I guess), the husband wasn't terribly keen on marriage either, and departed immediately for the continent to do other things.
Mary (again, the character) is a self-taught genius, from an idea that most geniuses are self-taught, rising above and beyond basic education. This is from a time when the word "genius" was only then starting to take on its modern meaning that we use it for. Mary is a rational and sensible creature, and is actually coded "masculine" (for the time) in many of her mannerisms. Her romantic friends, both the male and the female, are coded "feminine" (for the time) in their weaknesses and delicacy. Both relationships are a bit erotic, but not sexual. Indeed, the strong female character she offers here is often regarded as a first for novels.
The author Mary felt that marriage enchained geniuses rather than enriched them, so this novel also functioned as a critique of marriage.
The writing itself is weak, and overblown in its language, but it attempts to depict a liberated and reasoning female genius. Many experts consider it a milestone in feminist literature. I've been trying (this year and last) to dive into some of Mary Shelley's influences and surroundings, so this was the first time I ever read anything written by her mother, a well-known 18th century feminist. Wollstonecraft is best known for "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (which I haven't read yet), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason. This book is a step in that direction.
February 4, 2023
"Mary, a fiction" de Mary Wollstonecraft (1788)
Wollstonecraft a scris două romane, iar acesta este primul publicat, unul de care autoarea nu a fost prea mândră, dimpotrivă l-a numit un eșec artistic. Deși nu s-a priceput la scrierea romanelor (de altfel, a mai scris doar încă un roman), Mary W. a publicat în cei 38 de ani de viață lucrări cu greutate: eseuri, lucrări de filosofie politică și activism social, memorii de călătorie. Din tot ce a publicat, totuși, m-am decis să încerc acest roman, deși recenziile pe care le-am parcurs sunt foarte polarizate.
M-am gândit că va fi posibil să nu îmi placă stilul (totuși este o scriere de la 1788), pe de altă parte am fost foarte curioasă să văd prin ce a fost acest roman neconvențional. Și primul lucru pe care l-am aflat a fost cel legat de subtitlu. De obicei, în epocă, se foloseau alți termeni pentru biografiile unor eroi sau eroine, de exemplu "a history". "A fiction" este un subtitlu neobișnuit (totuși atât de interesant când te gândești că fiica sa, Mary Shelley va fi considerată mai târziu scriitoare de science-fiction). În deschiderea romanului, Wollstonecraft explică libertatea de creație pe care i-o dă ficțiunea:
"În această poveste nu tocmai artistică, fără episoade, este prezentată mintea unei femei care are puteri de gândire. Organele feminine au fost considerate prea slabe pentru această îndeletnicire grea; iar experienţa pare să justifice afirmaţia. Fără a intra în dezbateri legate de dotările fizice (ale femeii de a gîndi) — într-o ficțiune, o astfel de ființă poate fi lăsată să existe; o ființă a cărei măreție derivă din folosirea propriilor facultăți, nesubjugate opiniei altora; ci extrase chiar de eroină din sursa originală."
În epocă, formatorii de opinie susțineau că dimensiunile mai mici ale creierului femeii nu îi permit acesteia să fie la fel de rațională și activă precum un bărbat. Wollstonecraft nu intră în polemici legate de dimensiunea creierului și scrie în preambulul romanului că imaginează o situație în care eroina, în ciuda evidențelor biologice, reușește să se auto-educe, să raționeze, să facă alegeri care sunt în afara normelor sociale. Eroina se numește tot Mary, fapt care nu este întâmplător, romanul fiind condimentat cu elemente autobiografice.
Mary este o femeie care își formează propriile opinii citind independent, făcând lungi plimbări solitare în natură, având prietenii profunde cu oamenii și lucrând în folosul comunității. Ea este forțată de societate să intre în sarabanda căsătoriei, însă nu aderă la un stil de viață predefinit. Mary este o femeie care va alege să aibă două relații intime intense cu o femeie, și apoi cu un bărbat, în afara căsătoriei. Pentru acea epocă, eroina era prima dintr-o nouă categorie de personaje.
Evident, alegerile ei nu sunt compatibile cu normele sociale, Wollstonecraft nu ne prezintă un scenariu alternativ celui pe care îl critică, singura scăpare a eroinei rămâne moartea. Mary se îmbolnăvește:
"Starea ei delicată de sănătate nu promitea viață lungă. În momentele de tristețe solitară, o sclipire de bucurie îi trecea prin minte — Ea credea că se grăbește spre acea lume în care nu există nici căsătorie, nici forțare întru căsătorie."
În încheiere, într-adevăr, nu pot spune că lectura sau povestea au fost pe gustul meu din punct de vedere literar, dar cred că reprezintă un reper interesant de înțeles în privința luptelor de idei care au schimbat societatea, așa cum știm să ne bucurăm astăzi de ea.
https://www.nypl.org/events/tours/aud...
Wollstonecraft a scris două romane, iar acesta este primul publicat, unul de care autoarea nu a fost prea mândră, dimpotrivă l-a numit un eșec artistic. Deși nu s-a priceput la scrierea romanelor (de altfel, a mai scris doar încă un roman), Mary W. a publicat în cei 38 de ani de viață lucrări cu greutate: eseuri, lucrări de filosofie politică și activism social, memorii de călătorie. Din tot ce a publicat, totuși, m-am decis să încerc acest roman, deși recenziile pe care le-am parcurs sunt foarte polarizate.
M-am gândit că va fi posibil să nu îmi placă stilul (totuși este o scriere de la 1788), pe de altă parte am fost foarte curioasă să văd prin ce a fost acest roman neconvențional. Și primul lucru pe care l-am aflat a fost cel legat de subtitlu. De obicei, în epocă, se foloseau alți termeni pentru biografiile unor eroi sau eroine, de exemplu "a history". "A fiction" este un subtitlu neobișnuit (totuși atât de interesant când te gândești că fiica sa, Mary Shelley va fi considerată mai târziu scriitoare de science-fiction). În deschiderea romanului, Wollstonecraft explică libertatea de creație pe care i-o dă ficțiunea:
"În această poveste nu tocmai artistică, fără episoade, este prezentată mintea unei femei care are puteri de gândire. Organele feminine au fost considerate prea slabe pentru această îndeletnicire grea; iar experienţa pare să justifice afirmaţia. Fără a intra în dezbateri legate de dotările fizice (ale femeii de a gîndi) — într-o ficțiune, o astfel de ființă poate fi lăsată să existe; o ființă a cărei măreție derivă din folosirea propriilor facultăți, nesubjugate opiniei altora; ci extrase chiar de eroină din sursa originală."
În epocă, formatorii de opinie susțineau că dimensiunile mai mici ale creierului femeii nu îi permit acesteia să fie la fel de rațională și activă precum un bărbat. Wollstonecraft nu intră în polemici legate de dimensiunea creierului și scrie în preambulul romanului că imaginează o situație în care eroina, în ciuda evidențelor biologice, reușește să se auto-educe, să raționeze, să facă alegeri care sunt în afara normelor sociale. Eroina se numește tot Mary, fapt care nu este întâmplător, romanul fiind condimentat cu elemente autobiografice.
Mary este o femeie care își formează propriile opinii citind independent, făcând lungi plimbări solitare în natură, având prietenii profunde cu oamenii și lucrând în folosul comunității. Ea este forțată de societate să intre în sarabanda căsătoriei, însă nu aderă la un stil de viață predefinit. Mary este o femeie care va alege să aibă două relații intime intense cu o femeie, și apoi cu un bărbat, în afara căsătoriei. Pentru acea epocă, eroina era prima dintr-o nouă categorie de personaje.
Evident, alegerile ei nu sunt compatibile cu normele sociale, Wollstonecraft nu ne prezintă un scenariu alternativ celui pe care îl critică, singura scăpare a eroinei rămâne moartea. Mary se îmbolnăvește:
"Starea ei delicată de sănătate nu promitea viață lungă. În momentele de tristețe solitară, o sclipire de bucurie îi trecea prin minte — Ea credea că se grăbește spre acea lume în care nu există nici căsătorie, nici forțare întru căsătorie."
În încheiere, într-adevăr, nu pot spune că lectura sau povestea au fost pe gustul meu din punct de vedere literar, dar cred că reprezintă un reper interesant de înțeles în privința luptelor de idei care au schimbat societatea, așa cum știm să ne bucurăm astăzi de ea.
https://www.nypl.org/events/tours/aud...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews