What do you think?
Rate this book
Mary Shelley
In the summer of 1816, aged nineteen, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein . A pioneering work of science fiction, it captured the popular imagination from the start. The daughter of radical philosopher William Godwin and pioneering feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley lived an unconventional life marred by tragedy. At sixteen she scandalised England by eloping with her married lover, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, but was widowed after only a few years when he drowned. She survived him by nearly thirty years, supporting herself and their one surviving son largely by the pen.Muriel Spark had a lifelong fascination with Mary Shelley. She published her first book on her in 1951, then spent decades revising and refining it. It is reissued here with previously unpublished material. Spark paints an engaging portrait of a complex and misunderstood figure. She divides her study into parts, ‘Biographical’ and ‘Critical’. A sympathetic account of Shelley’s life is followed by critical studies of her major literary works. Spark’s abridgement of Shelley’s uneven apocalyptic novel The Last Man is included here, while her initial scheme for the book and her later preface, in which she reflects on her own subsequent career as a novelist, are added. This is a fascinating study of Mary Shelley’s life and work. It also provides valuable insight into the critical and creative development of Muriel Spark.With an introduction by Michael Schmidt.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
18 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Muriel Spark
226 books1,297 followersDame Muriel Spark, DBE was a prolific Scottish novelist, short story writer and poet whose darkly comedic voice made her one of the most distinctive writers of the twentieth century. In 2008 The Times newspaper named Spark in its list of "the 50 greatest British writers since 1945".
Spark received the James Tait Black Memorial Prize in 1965 for The Mandelbaum Gate, the Ingersoll Foundation TS Eliot Award in 1992 and the David Cohen Prize in 1997. She became Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1993, in recognition of her services to literature. She has been twice shortlisted for the Booker Prize, in 1969 for The Public Image and in 1981 for Loitering with Intent. In 1998, she was awarded the Golden PEN Award by English PEN for "a Lifetime's Distinguished Service to Literature". In 2010, Spark was shortlisted for the Lost Man Booker Prize of 1970 for The Driver's Seat.
Spark received eight honorary doctorates in her lifetime. These included a Doctor of the University degree (Honoris causa) from her alma mater, Heriot-Watt University in 1995; a Doctor of Humane Letters (Honoris causa) from the American University of Paris in 2005; and Honorary Doctor of Letters degrees from the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, London, Oxford, St Andrews and Strathclyde.
Spark grew up in Edinburgh and worked as a department store secretary, writer for trade magazines, and literary editor before publishing her first novel, The Comforters, in 1957. The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, published in 1961, and considered her masterpiece, was made into a stage play, a TV series, and a film.
Spark received the James Tait Black Memorial Prize in 1965 for The Mandelbaum Gate, the Ingersoll Foundation TS Eliot Award in 1992 and the David Cohen Prize in 1997. She became Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1993, in recognition of her services to literature. She has been twice shortlisted for the Booker Prize, in 1969 for The Public Image and in 1981 for Loitering with Intent. In 1998, she was awarded the Golden PEN Award by English PEN for "a Lifetime's Distinguished Service to Literature". In 2010, Spark was shortlisted for the Lost Man Booker Prize of 1970 for The Driver's Seat.
Spark received eight honorary doctorates in her lifetime. These included a Doctor of the University degree (Honoris causa) from her alma mater, Heriot-Watt University in 1995; a Doctor of Humane Letters (Honoris causa) from the American University of Paris in 2005; and Honorary Doctor of Letters degrees from the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, London, Oxford, St Andrews and Strathclyde.
Spark grew up in Edinburgh and worked as a department store secretary, writer for trade magazines, and literary editor before publishing her first novel, The Comforters, in 1957. The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, published in 1961, and considered her masterpiece, was made into a stage play, a TV series, and a film.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
August 24, 2022
Mary Shelley is one of my favourite writers, and I find her life so fascinating.
Without providing a lengthy summary, let's just say it was eventful to say the least. Her elopement with the radical poet Percy Shelley, losing her mother the day she was born and her strange relationship with her father all helped to fuel some truly remarkable literary content. She had a great imagination and her works discuss some truly profound ideas. Frankenstein and The Last Man are both fantastic pieces of writing.
The fact that she wrote a novel as remarkable, intelligent and sophisticated as Frankenstein when she was only seventeen is incredible. Without turning this review into an overly emotional outpouring about why that novel is so great and important, let me just say one thing: it is brilliant. And this biography here attempts to capture the person behind the words and to also understand the circumstances which gave birth to Mary Shelley's famous (and less famous) writing.
It's a good piece of writing, but it is quite brief. It's not quite a biography and it's not quite a work of literary criticism. It's a bit of both but doesn't quite go into enough detail to be a successful work of either. It's a genuine delight to read, but very much an introductory text. There are better biographies of Mary Shelley out there and there are much detailed criticism too.
I did, however, read this book in a day. It's been a very long time since I've read a book this long in such a short period of time. For me, that says a great deal. Maybe I'm just a bit biased on the subject matter.
___________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
Without providing a lengthy summary, let's just say it was eventful to say the least. Her elopement with the radical poet Percy Shelley, losing her mother the day she was born and her strange relationship with her father all helped to fuel some truly remarkable literary content. She had a great imagination and her works discuss some truly profound ideas. Frankenstein and The Last Man are both fantastic pieces of writing.
The fact that she wrote a novel as remarkable, intelligent and sophisticated as Frankenstein when she was only seventeen is incredible. Without turning this review into an overly emotional outpouring about why that novel is so great and important, let me just say one thing: it is brilliant. And this biography here attempts to capture the person behind the words and to also understand the circumstances which gave birth to Mary Shelley's famous (and less famous) writing.
It's a good piece of writing, but it is quite brief. It's not quite a biography and it's not quite a work of literary criticism. It's a bit of both but doesn't quite go into enough detail to be a successful work of either. It's a genuine delight to read, but very much an introductory text. There are better biographies of Mary Shelley out there and there are much detailed criticism too.
I did, however, read this book in a day. It's been a very long time since I've read a book this long in such a short period of time. For me, that says a great deal. Maybe I'm just a bit biased on the subject matter.
___________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________
August 29, 2019
This is a biography of one of my favourite writers, written by another of my favourite writers. That said, I enjoyed it but was left a bit unsatisfied, feeling that we never quite get inside Mary's heart and mind. And maybe that's okay because maybe it's none of our business, really, but as she is dead and will never write again, I still find myself wanting to know her more intimately. Spark doesn't say anything here I didn't already know about the Shelleys' lives and I was surprised and frustrated by that; nevertheless, I appreciate very much her tender and sympathetic understanding of Mary and her respect for her as a woman, a writer, and a genius with a noble soul who suffered much in her life. The critical essays in the second half of the book are very good, of course, as Spark was also a genius.
March 14, 2016
For Mary Godwin, eight years with Shelley were the best of times and the worst of times. On the one hand, living with Shelley brought her travel, excitement, and intellectual stimulation.
On the other hand, their first three children died in early childhood (the first child, a daughter, was born prematurely), Shelley was constantly in debt, both their reputations were tarnished because they eloped when Shelley was married to another woman and Mary was barely 17 and therefore they were not welcome in Mr. Godwin’s house, and Shelley’s father had previously cut him off financially.
Shelley may have been a poetic genius, but at best he was reckless, or else had little common sense, or both. In reading Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, by Edward John Trelawny, I learned that Shelley had little aptitude for sailing and practically no experience sailing on large bodies of water. This carefree attitude and lack of judgment explains his premature death by drowning in 1822 off the coast of Italy--nothing romantic or heroic about that.
Mary's life after Shelley was a struggle beset with financial woes and unreliable relationships with family and inconstant friends and associates. All in all, a rather sad and tragic life.
Muriel Spark is an excellent writer and does what she can with the material. The first part of the book—up to Shelley’s death—is more interesting that the part about life after Shelley. Things pick up again in the last part of the book, in which Spark discusses Mary’s literary output. (She wrote more than just Frankenstein.)
On the other hand, their first three children died in early childhood (the first child, a daughter, was born prematurely), Shelley was constantly in debt, both their reputations were tarnished because they eloped when Shelley was married to another woman and Mary was barely 17 and therefore they were not welcome in Mr. Godwin’s house, and Shelley’s father had previously cut him off financially.
Shelley may have been a poetic genius, but at best he was reckless, or else had little common sense, or both. In reading Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, by Edward John Trelawny, I learned that Shelley had little aptitude for sailing and practically no experience sailing on large bodies of water. This carefree attitude and lack of judgment explains his premature death by drowning in 1822 off the coast of Italy--nothing romantic or heroic about that.
Mary's life after Shelley was a struggle beset with financial woes and unreliable relationships with family and inconstant friends and associates. All in all, a rather sad and tragic life.
Muriel Spark is an excellent writer and does what she can with the material. The first part of the book—up to Shelley’s death—is more interesting that the part about life after Shelley. Things pick up again in the last part of the book, in which Spark discusses Mary’s literary output. (She wrote more than just Frankenstein.)
November 28, 2021
Biografia essenziale che comprende stralci del diario scritto a due mani da Shelley e Mary e da alcune lettere.
Maggiore risalto si dà alla relazione fra i due che, osteggiati dal padre di lei, partono per l'Europa anche per sfuggire ai creditori, vivendo di stenti. Tutto in nome dell'arte! Intrecci amorosi e ménage a trois degni di un romanzo d'appendice, lasciano poco spazio alla carriera letteraria della scrittrice.
Persino l'episodio della creazione di Frankenstein si riduce a qualche riga.
Lutti, suicidi, ricatti, non manca nulla, peccato solo che questo "nulla" siano tutte le sue opere solamente citate e poi dimenticate.
Maggiore risalto si dà alla relazione fra i due che, osteggiati dal padre di lei, partono per l'Europa anche per sfuggire ai creditori, vivendo di stenti. Tutto in nome dell'arte! Intrecci amorosi e ménage a trois degni di un romanzo d'appendice, lasciano poco spazio alla carriera letteraria della scrittrice.
Persino l'episodio della creazione di Frankenstein si riduce a qualche riga.
Lutti, suicidi, ricatti, non manca nulla, peccato solo che questo "nulla" siano tutte le sue opere solamente citate e poi dimenticate.
December 7, 2011
Dopplegängers: Mary Shelley and Muriel Spark
Mary Shelley died on February 1, 1851. On February 1, 1918, Muriel Spark was born. The two writers shared the same initials. Their last names, under which they wrote, were assumed from husbands. Both wound up single mothers of an only son and both suffered chronic financial worries. These coincidences, for someone with Muriel Spark’s mystical temperament, are definitive. Child of Light: A Reassessment of Mary Wollestonecraft Shelley published in 1951 was Muriel Spark’s first book (revised and retitled Mary Shelley: A Biography in 1987). It is an extraordinary portrayal of the world-renowned but much neglected early 19th century novelist, daughter of pioneering intellectuals Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, and wife of the Romantic poet Percy B. Shelley. Child of Light would not be part of the Spark oeuvre, however, if there weren’t at least one slightly sinister subtext of equal fascination: within the biography’s pages Spark is busily and efficiently creating, Frankenstein-like, an identity for herself as a novelist.
In her 1987 introduction, Spark reveals that at the time she was writing Child of Light she envisioned for herself a career as critic and poet having no plans whatsoever to become a novelist, though “now I do practically nothing else but write novels.” Child of Light is delightfully strange, intense, reverberant, brief, superior, searching, and a harbinger of Spark’s future novels. While recounting Mary Shelley’s tempestuous saga, Spark ponders the pleasures and pitfalls of her predecessor’s literary life, scrutinizing her mentor’s finely crafted tools of the trade. As a magnificent portrait of a woman and artist in the 19th century emerges, we watch rise out of Mary Shelley’s ashes the creator of Fleur Talbot who joyfully, but not without irony, declares in Loitering with Intent: “How wonderful to be an artist and a woman in the twentieth century.”
Read on at Bookslut: http://www.bookslut.com/the_bombshell...
Mary Shelley died on February 1, 1851. On February 1, 1918, Muriel Spark was born. The two writers shared the same initials. Their last names, under which they wrote, were assumed from husbands. Both wound up single mothers of an only son and both suffered chronic financial worries. These coincidences, for someone with Muriel Spark’s mystical temperament, are definitive. Child of Light: A Reassessment of Mary Wollestonecraft Shelley published in 1951 was Muriel Spark’s first book (revised and retitled Mary Shelley: A Biography in 1987). It is an extraordinary portrayal of the world-renowned but much neglected early 19th century novelist, daughter of pioneering intellectuals Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, and wife of the Romantic poet Percy B. Shelley. Child of Light would not be part of the Spark oeuvre, however, if there weren’t at least one slightly sinister subtext of equal fascination: within the biography’s pages Spark is busily and efficiently creating, Frankenstein-like, an identity for herself as a novelist.
In her 1987 introduction, Spark reveals that at the time she was writing Child of Light she envisioned for herself a career as critic and poet having no plans whatsoever to become a novelist, though “now I do practically nothing else but write novels.” Child of Light is delightfully strange, intense, reverberant, brief, superior, searching, and a harbinger of Spark’s future novels. While recounting Mary Shelley’s tempestuous saga, Spark ponders the pleasures and pitfalls of her predecessor’s literary life, scrutinizing her mentor’s finely crafted tools of the trade. As a magnificent portrait of a woman and artist in the 19th century emerges, we watch rise out of Mary Shelley’s ashes the creator of Fleur Talbot who joyfully, but not without irony, declares in Loitering with Intent: “How wonderful to be an artist and a woman in the twentieth century.”
Read on at Bookslut: http://www.bookslut.com/the_bombshell...
August 8, 2021
I’ve recently read a short (Wikipedia!) summary of Percy Shelley’s life because in another book his drowning near Pisa was mentioned and I wanted to know how that happenned. Well, I was left stunned at his, shall we say, extreme behaviour, especially towards the women unlucky enough to be his partners in life… About Mary, I only knew superficially the story of how she wrote Frankenstein - now I became really interested to know more of her life and choices that kept a smart and enlightened woman within her times, with this… insufferable person.
Enter Muriel Sparks whose “Memento mori” I loved, and whose works include Mary’s biography (yay!)
From Muriel’s unpublished 1950. preface:
“Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, had been an ardent feminist who, although she was at pains to set forth her theories on the rights of women, was herself temperamentally unsuited to the application of her doctrines. It was her daughter, Mary Shelley, who realised these ideals by a natural acceptance of her status as a creature the equal of, yet different from, the male of her time.”
So, what did I learn? That Mary was, like you and me, doing her best to get by in life with the cards she was dealt (and, of course, those she chose more or less wisely along the way - by far the most dramatic, her elopement with & attachment to Shelley). And the answer to the initial question? Love, of course…
The second part is critical analysis by Muriel of Mary’s main works - Frankenstein obviously, but also others. This was a bit too scholarly for me, especially about books I haven’t read (I only read Frankenstein, albeit a long time ago, and now abridged The Last Man which was included here; and I must say it’s not what I’d choose to read myself, not least due to writing style that can’t help but be outdated now), and I did in the end skim through most of it. What left an impression was when Mary writes about Shelley: the way she sees him and, in spite of living with him, relentlessly idolizes him.
In conclusion: not an easy read, dry and lecturing style, hard to connect with, but also some touching moments and insights.
Enter Muriel Sparks whose “Memento mori” I loved, and whose works include Mary’s biography (yay!)
From Muriel’s unpublished 1950. preface:
“Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, had been an ardent feminist who, although she was at pains to set forth her theories on the rights of women, was herself temperamentally unsuited to the application of her doctrines. It was her daughter, Mary Shelley, who realised these ideals by a natural acceptance of her status as a creature the equal of, yet different from, the male of her time.”
So, what did I learn? That Mary was, like you and me, doing her best to get by in life with the cards she was dealt (and, of course, those she chose more or less wisely along the way - by far the most dramatic, her elopement with & attachment to Shelley). And the answer to the initial question? Love, of course…
The second part is critical analysis by Muriel of Mary’s main works - Frankenstein obviously, but also others. This was a bit too scholarly for me, especially about books I haven’t read (I only read Frankenstein, albeit a long time ago, and now abridged The Last Man which was included here; and I must say it’s not what I’d choose to read myself, not least due to writing style that can’t help but be outdated now), and I did in the end skim through most of it. What left an impression was when Mary writes about Shelley: the way she sees him and, in spite of living with him, relentlessly idolizes him.
In conclusion: not an easy read, dry and lecturing style, hard to connect with, but also some touching moments and insights.
June 9, 2016
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.
did-not-finish
October 22, 2018Started reading this because I like Spark's fiction and thought it would be interesting to read a biography by her. While she didn't disappoint, I grew bored with the Shelleys.
September 29, 2025
mary shelley, the icon you were
March 10, 2017
Egads. Strongly prefer: "Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Her Daughter Mary Shelley," (2015) by Charlotte Gordon, a modern exploration of the lives and works of two remarkable and fascinating women writer/philosopher/influencers.
Although I appreciated the focus on Mary Shelley and the quotes from her journal, overall I found this biography, first published in 1951, to have an odd and off-putting tone. It too frequently focuses on comparing Shelley's thoughts and works to those of her father, William Godwin, and husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley. This book received praise when published. Was it simply that there were few works that focused on Mary Shelley at the time?
The book is split into two parts: the biography and literary criticism of Shelley's well-known works Frankenstein and The Last Man, her historical romance novel Perkin Warbeck, her notes on Percy Bysshe Shelley's poetry and Mary Shelley's own verse. There's scant mention of Mary Shelley's short stories or other novels Lodore, Valperga, Falkner or Mathilda.
The biography is fairly straightforward, but could do with more description of the time period to put some of Shelley's experiences from 1797-1851 in context. The author also seems oddly critical of Shelley's despondent, withdrawn and introspective periods (i.e. following the deaths of her children, death of her husband, and later death of her friend Lord Byron). It's not a sympathetic portrayal. Dear Mary Shelley seems misunderstood in life and also in death by this biographer.
For those familiar with Shelley's works, the criticism section has little to add. It frequently seems overly critical with too much emphasis on trying to pigeonhole Shelley's works — and indeed her persona! — as following Romantic (like her husband) or Rational (like her father) philosophy. There's very little respect shown for or credit given for Shelley's own ingenuity.
For those who appreciate Shelley's contributions to the literary scene, lines like these baffle and irritate:
"Mary Shelley's was not the type of creative mind that generates it own flow of inspiration. Her talent depended very much on the fluctuating influences of external things, like the weather."
"This lyrical faculty emanates possibly from the Wollstonecraft, Irish strain in her, which had been largely overwhelmed by Godwin's prosaic influence."
Taken together "Child of Light" and "Romantic Outlaws" clearly illustrate the influence of biographers and critics on a writer's reception, legacy and portrayal. Although "Child of Light" does not seem to do Mary Shelley justice it would be far worse if she were forgotten. At least the author paid Mary Shelley some (limited and marred) attention.
Although I appreciated the focus on Mary Shelley and the quotes from her journal, overall I found this biography, first published in 1951, to have an odd and off-putting tone. It too frequently focuses on comparing Shelley's thoughts and works to those of her father, William Godwin, and husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley. This book received praise when published. Was it simply that there were few works that focused on Mary Shelley at the time?
The book is split into two parts: the biography and literary criticism of Shelley's well-known works Frankenstein and The Last Man, her historical romance novel Perkin Warbeck, her notes on Percy Bysshe Shelley's poetry and Mary Shelley's own verse. There's scant mention of Mary Shelley's short stories or other novels Lodore, Valperga, Falkner or Mathilda.
The biography is fairly straightforward, but could do with more description of the time period to put some of Shelley's experiences from 1797-1851 in context. The author also seems oddly critical of Shelley's despondent, withdrawn and introspective periods (i.e. following the deaths of her children, death of her husband, and later death of her friend Lord Byron). It's not a sympathetic portrayal. Dear Mary Shelley seems misunderstood in life and also in death by this biographer.
For those familiar with Shelley's works, the criticism section has little to add. It frequently seems overly critical with too much emphasis on trying to pigeonhole Shelley's works — and indeed her persona! — as following Romantic (like her husband) or Rational (like her father) philosophy. There's very little respect shown for or credit given for Shelley's own ingenuity.
For those who appreciate Shelley's contributions to the literary scene, lines like these baffle and irritate:
"Mary Shelley's was not the type of creative mind that generates it own flow of inspiration. Her talent depended very much on the fluctuating influences of external things, like the weather."
"This lyrical faculty emanates possibly from the Wollstonecraft, Irish strain in her, which had been largely overwhelmed by Godwin's prosaic influence."
Taken together "Child of Light" and "Romantic Outlaws" clearly illustrate the influence of biographers and critics on a writer's reception, legacy and portrayal. Although "Child of Light" does not seem to do Mary Shelley justice it would be far worse if she were forgotten. At least the author paid Mary Shelley some (limited and marred) attention.
June 1, 2016
Una biografia un po' frettolosa e superficiale. L'autrice accenna ad alcuni elementi senza poi spiegarli, non si premura di delineare il quadro storico, sociale e culturale in cui Mary Shelley è vissuta né approfondisce la presentazione di coloro che attraversarono la sua vita. Delle opere di Mary viene riportato solo il titolo, senza altre informazioni. Mi è sembrata una lettura banale e insoddisfacente. Purtroppo non ho trovato altre biografie in italiano di Mary con cui fare un confronto.
May 19, 2024
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 the details of 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. I hope to reread "Frankenstein" soon and to try "The Last Man" to see what Mary Shelley's other novels are like.
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 the details of 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. I hope to reread "Frankenstein" soon and to try "The Last Man" to see what Mary Shelley's other novels are like.
April 2, 2020
Spark takes at the same time a sympathetic and a critical look at Mary Shelley’s life. The first part of the book, the biography, written in 1951 and revised in 1987, gives a clear account of Mary Shelley’s trials and difficulties, including her miscarriages. Spark also sympathetically explains Godwin’s (Mary’s father) stance in relation to PercyByshe and Mary’s running off with him.
There are hints of Mary’s being drawn to women, but Spark makes nothing of that. What does emerge is how Mary Shelley was let down and abandoned in her widowhood any number of times. How difficult matters were for her financially.
Spark criticises Mary Shelley’s critics for their unfair assessment of her work, incisively in the case of Herbert Read (p214), but nowhere does Spark call out the sexism and misogyny which led to that.
The second part of the book is Spark’s appraisal of Mary Shelley’s work. The piece on Frankenstein is good (after its barely being mentioned in the first part). The piece on Perkin Warbeck (which I haven’t read) is Interesting, but the piece on The Last Man seemed complete gobbledegook. For PW there was a clear resume, but not for The Last Man.
This is not a work to match up to modern scholarship, but it is worthwhile background for anyone reading, for example, Frankenstein in depth. It’s a bit dated, notwithstanding the 1987 revision.
There are hints of Mary’s being drawn to women, but Spark makes nothing of that. What does emerge is how Mary Shelley was let down and abandoned in her widowhood any number of times. How difficult matters were for her financially.
Spark criticises Mary Shelley’s critics for their unfair assessment of her work, incisively in the case of Herbert Read (p214), but nowhere does Spark call out the sexism and misogyny which led to that.
The second part of the book is Spark’s appraisal of Mary Shelley’s work. The piece on Frankenstein is good (after its barely being mentioned in the first part). The piece on Perkin Warbeck (which I haven’t read) is Interesting, but the piece on The Last Man seemed complete gobbledegook. For PW there was a clear resume, but not for The Last Man.
This is not a work to match up to modern scholarship, but it is worthwhile background for anyone reading, for example, Frankenstein in depth. It’s a bit dated, notwithstanding the 1987 revision.
September 4, 2018
This book is a fairly brief account of Mary Shelley's life, (146 pages) with the second half of the book including critical reviews of Mary Shelley's major works, including Frankenstein and The Last Man.
Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley for 8 years. She had 4 children, three dying during infancy. Mary wrote the novel Frankenstein when she was 18 - 19, receiving useful comments on her story by her husband Percy Shelley. Mary had financial problems for a number of years after her husband's death from a boating accident off the Italian coast when he was in his 20s. She was discouraged from writing novels by both her father and father-in-law. Mary wrote a number of articles and complied and edited her husband works. Muriel Spark suggests that her creative faculty dwindled over time however her prose style intensified and she used a more varied vocabulary.
An interesting read. I prefer Muriel Spark the novelist.
Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley for 8 years. She had 4 children, three dying during infancy. Mary wrote the novel Frankenstein when she was 18 - 19, receiving useful comments on her story by her husband Percy Shelley. Mary had financial problems for a number of years after her husband's death from a boating accident off the Italian coast when he was in his 20s. She was discouraged from writing novels by both her father and father-in-law. Mary wrote a number of articles and complied and edited her husband works. Muriel Spark suggests that her creative faculty dwindled over time however her prose style intensified and she used a more varied vocabulary.
An interesting read. I prefer Muriel Spark the novelist.
September 27, 2019
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.
October 14, 2018
sure yeah ok
January 11, 2020
Una biografía divertida y muy bien escrita, pinta muy bien la época y se lee como si fuera una novela. Muriel Spark es siempre una opción acertada
January 25, 2021
Interesting little biography on Mary, smart and touching
August 19, 2025
short sweet & to the point. more modern research provides more insight, but if you want the main story, this is it
February 13, 2018
Perhaps too measured and only partially integrates art and biography - in the end, this amounts to a powerful act of channelling.
January 15, 2016
In her preface, Spark disavows the tradition of overly descriptive and novelistic biographies. Consequently, in her treatment of Mary Shelley's life, she fills any space that might have held imaginative physical descriptions to her own inferences of Shelley's thoughts and feelings. Most of this is just as unsubstantiated and tiresome as the imaginative exercises she complains about. As a result this biography somehow feels both dull and flimsy. Her footnotes are variable and I can see no logic to what she cites and what she doesn't cite. She either tends towards overanalysis, or simply inserting pages-long quotes from Shelley's diaries or letters. I also did not enjoy Spark's writing style, which is quite flat and neutral except for the occasional incongruous use of pompously colorful words like "gallimaufry" or "perquisites." I am giving this book two stars because I was interested in Shelley's biographical information and behind all the prose I did get a good idea of it. However I am not at all interested in Spark's literary criticism and thus skipped about half of the book. The book sufficed as a slightly boring diversion for the slow times at work, but I can't help but think I would have gotten a similar effect from just reading the Mary Shelley Wikipedia page.
December 11, 2010
My lackluster review of this biography should in no way be construed as critical of Mary Shelley herself. In fact my enormously high regard for her undoubtedly contributed to the impossibly high bar I set for anyone who would deign to write a biography of her. So really: I think I was probably unfair to Muriel Spark, but she died a few years ago, and, barring some type of animation of her corpse, will probably not take it personally.
Really: you should just read Frankenstein again.
And, never one to shy away from shameless self promotion:
http://andyrantsandraves.blogspot.com...
Really: you should just read Frankenstein again.
And, never one to shy away from shameless self promotion:
http://andyrantsandraves.blogspot.com...
April 25, 2011
My Momma always taught me: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. So all I have to say about this is that Betty Bennett's biography of Mary Shelley is great, and I hear Muriel Spark was a half-decent novelist. But you should read biographies by good biographers, like Betty Bennett.
December 6, 2011
Supplemental reading for the Frankenstein book club. It's fairly comprehensive, and is clearly well-researched, but it is also dry and not very compelling. There MUST be a better biography out there! Mary Shelley's life was very dramatic - it shouldn't be difficult to tell her story in a compelling and page-turning way. Right?
Want to read
August 14, 20152013 revised edition.
Stalled on this book because the Carcanet Press version I purchased years ago has a massive printing error in it: pages 175 to 206 are missing, and instead, pages 207 to 238 are repeated. It's kind of fascinating, but ultimately it means I can't read the darn book.
Stalled on this book because the Carcanet Press version I purchased years ago has a massive printing error in it: pages 175 to 206 are missing, and instead, pages 207 to 238 are repeated. It's kind of fascinating, but ultimately it means I can't read the darn book.
August 21, 2016
After Frankenstein and (especially) The Last Man, I wanted to know more about Mary Shelley. This helped, but the writing was neither here nor there, a fascinating life was made less so, and in the conclusion, the points she said she'd made hadn't made any impression on me. Oops.
April 13, 2009
ugh, really didn't get much out of this one for research purposes :(
June 2, 2012
Fascinating subject, dry material.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews