What could have been an insightful examination of two complicated figures in the history of political thought instead applies a shallow modern gloss to Wollstonecraft's ideology and focuses heavily on the characters' romantic relationships with men. As someone fairly knowledgeable in the realm of political philosophy, it's likely that I wanted this book to be something that would have made it less generally popular with readers. However, I think there was still room to engage with the difficult parts of Wollstonecraft's thought and the ways it was both informed and challenged by her life and later her daughter's.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to reflect on historical thought with a modern lens, but I think this work misplaces where that would best be done. Thornton writes Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley almost as though they were modern women who happened to be living in another time. Wollstonecraft was not a feminist; there is actually a scholarly debate about whether to even consider her work proto-feminist given her vastly different views on equality compared to those taken up by feminists in the 1890s. I would rather the author have let the characters keep the less palatable aspects of their thought and employed the modern lens only by challenging those thoughts through the narrative and the characters' circumstances.
One of the main issues with this novel's take on Wollstonecraft is that it does not depict any of her takes on class or wealth, or if it did, it was so fleeting as not to have impacted the story at all. Wollstonecraft's ideology was bourgeois, and though anti-aristocracy, she was no strong advocate for the poor or working class, even advocating that the rich and poor be educated separately upon reaching nine or so years old. She idolized the middle class as the most natural state, and argued in favor of a middle class ethos of honesty, modesty, and frugality.
I would have liked to see this explored more, especially in the context of the French Revolution which Wollstonecraft witnesses in the novel. Wollstonecraft associated with the Girondins, the more moderate branch of thought that broke away from the Jacobins. There could have been some interesting tension between her more moderate republican sentiments and those that were expressed by the Enragés - a more radical working class faction. The Enragés even sent female representatives to the National Convention who were turned away on account of their gender - something that could have caught the character's interest and had her consider some of her class-related thoughts. Lord Byron could have been a way to explore this with the other protagonist - he acts the part of the radical and gets away with it due to his nobility, but in practice he cannot tolerate lowborn Claire raising his child. Class politics never enter into these events in the book.
At the same time, Thornton imposes a rather more modern, material understanding of equality onto Wollstonecraft than was true to her thought. Wollstonecraft considered men and women to be moral equals, and advocated for education such that women could act as moral beings in the same ways as men. She did not, however, think they should have completely equal roles, instead arguing that education and understanding would help women to be better wives and mothers. In the book, however, the characters seem to want complete financial independence. The real Wollstonecraft, however, called upon men to help women improve rather than asking women to do so independently. Wollstonecraft recognized the double standard applied to the sexual transgressions of men and women, but her solution was for everyone to be more chaste and spurn sexual desire - though her views on this changed after meeting Imlay. This change could have been an interesting development of her character, but was not really reflected in the novel.
This work either seems not to challenge its own un-feminist portrayals of its female characters, and when it does, it challenges them in a conservative rather than progressive direction. For example, although Wollstonecraft argued that a lack of education made women into silly, frivolous beings, Tomaselli's 2021 biography holds that her own simple aesthetic tastes were not a reflection of prudishness or asceticism. Thornton instead characterizes Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley as "not like other girls" in their disdain for pretty ornaments and elegance. Claire Clairmont, for example, is portrayed as consistently frivolous and even as a burden throughout the novel. Mary Shelley running away with Percy is portrayed as justified simply because Harriet is a little snobby and doesn't like reading, and her suicide is addressed with only some passing guilt.
While it's possible these perspectives could have been consistent with the historical figures given Wollstonecraft's disapproval of being ruled by sensibility and sympathy over reason, this is not addressed. It also seems as though the author wanted to challenge them given Jane's redemption at the very end, but I would have preferred for this to enter more into the characters' development. This depiction of the characters' interactions with other women does not seem informed by the source material, but neither is it consistent with the author's attempted feminist interpretation. We are expected to forgive Jane's mistreatment of Mary Shelley, but not Claire's misjudgments or her pining for Percy.
Something similar happens with the protagonists' love lives. In reality, Wollstonecraft began to disdain commerce and advocate for time spent in nature given her negative experiences with Imlay, but the novel itself does not demonstrate this affair's impact on her political thoughts. Mary Shelley's relationship with Percy is also sanitized in order to make him an absolute perfect husband, which he seems not to have been in reality. Thornton mentions in the author's note that she did not depict Percy in a relationship with Claire given Mary's vehement denial of this in the source material. However, there could have been an interesting conflict between the couple given Percy's strong belief in non-monogamy; Claire Clairmont actually later wrote that *both* Percy and Byron were cruel people. This could have been a way for the narrative to issue a modern challenge to Wollstonecraft's belief in free love as Mary Shelley discovers that even outside the institution of marriage and among educated women, men have more power and freedom within social mores. Instead, it seems that the author was more interested in depicting a tragic fairy-tale love story than engaging with philosophy while writing about philosophers.
These issues with the protagonists' interactions with other characters highlight an issue that extends throughout the novel; that there was never enough connection between the characters' experiences and ideas. The work delivers Wollstonecraft to us having already tried and failed as a governess and with a finished manuscript in hand ready to publish. I would have loved to see her push against social constraints, have lots of feelings about it, and transform those feelings into an ideology. Wollstonecraft was depressed throughout her entire life, and I would have liked to see that come up as a through-line that was connected to her experiences of disadvantage as a woman. While her letters indicate that her depression did flare up in response to Imlay's cruelty, Thornton limits it completely to that time of her life. It is striking that a work that attempts to be a feminist portrayal of these figures ended up tying part of Wollstonecraft's own character solely to her experiences with a man.
I do give this book credit for being an enjoyable read and prompting me to look into some interesting historical tidbits, but it lacked a coherent thesis and link between events and ideas. This novel was mostly concerned with depicting the external dramas and conflicts of these historical female writers while giving them a shallow veneer of the political (even saying the French Revolution should have had "less revolution and more freedom" - as if people hadn't already thought of that before resorting to more desperate measures). It lacked some of the most interesting parts of Wollstonecraft's ideology that could have provided ample opportunity for a fascinating friction between the characters' thoughts and experiences. This work could have demonstrated through its narrative that its characters' perspectives were flawed, but it instead sanitized and idolized the complicated people Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley were.