Mary Wollstonecraft Books

This edition reprints the Shelley portion of the old Modern Library Giants volume, The Complete Poems of Keats and Shelley (who made a rather odd couple, but were nowhere near as mismatched as William Blake and John Donne, stars of a companion Giants volume).
Because Keats wrote about 450 (standard print) pages of poetry in his short life, and Shelley in his slightly longer time wrote close to a thousand - not counting his various prefaces and lengthy notes, as well as the interesting commentary of his first editor, and widow, Mary Shelley, which all previous editions had retained - it should come as no surprise that the capacity of even a Giants volume was strained, and compromises had to be made.
The compromises all hit Shelley, as the more prolific and perennially less popular of the two poets: many early poems, and some of the more fragmentary lyrics and translations were simply left out; the remaining juvenilia, including the long poem Queen Mab, were printed in double column format (with so many carry-over lines that you wonder why), as was a mid-length poem of his maturity, Rosalind and Helen. Shelley's notes to Queen Mab and some other prose, mostly connected with the early poems, were also omitted.
The Giant edition, even with these sacrifices made, was still longer than War and Peace. If one accepts that putting almost all the works of Shelley and Keats together in one volume is a desirable thing, then it has to be admitted this was a pretty decent way to do it. As it was an inexpensive commercial edition, it didn't go out of its way to better the established texts of rival editions (dating back to around 1900).
Modern Library later re-released the contents in separate Shelley and Keats volumes that have remained in print to this day; the ML Shelley was the only (fairly) modern, (mostly) complete, (generally) readable - all rival editions were double-column - edition available during the 70s, 80s, 90s; with the single exception of the Oxford University Press edition that was aborted after two volumes (covering the poems up to about 1816), and cost about a zillion dollars per book.
Today there are two expertly-edited, impressively over-annotated complete versions in the works: one American, one British. The American edition has only one volume out (as of mid-2002), containing just the first 150 pages of his poetry, and for about eighty American dollars. Shelley's greatness bloomed a bit late: the consistently readable poetry will only appear from volume 2 on; the great works will start around volume 4, at this rate. The British edition, by Longmans, costs well over a hundred dollars a volume, is not available..., and seems to only consist of a second volume at this time, representing Laon & Cythna through the Cenci (c.1817-1818). Both these volumes were published years ago; at this rate we should have rival perfectly-edited, entirely unaffordable complete editions of Shelley's entire poetical works by about 2015.
I give all this information to demonstrate that the Modern Library edition, -despite- reprinting inadequate texts of The Triumph of Life and Laon & Cythna / The Revolt of Islam, -despite- omitting the famous notes to Queen Mab (so much better than the poem), -despite- printing some material in hideous double columns...
...is the best volume of this great author's works available.

This edition reprints the Shelley portion of the old Modern Library Giants volume, The Complete Poems of Keats and Shelley (who made a rather odd couple, but were nowhere near as mismatched as William Blake and John Donne, stars of a companion Giants volume).
Because Keats wrote about 450 (standard print) pages of poetry in his short life, and Shelley in his slightly longer time wrote close to a thousand - not counting his various prefaces and lengthy notes, as well as the interesting commentary of his first editor, and widow, Mary Shelley, which all previous editions had retained - it should come as no surprise that the capacity of even a Giants volume was strained, and compromises had to be made.
The compromises all hit Shelley, as the more prolific and perennially less popular of the two poets: many early poems, and some of the more fragmentary lyrics and translations were simply left out; the remaining juvenilia, including the long poem Queen Mab, were printed in double column format (with so many carry-over lines that you wonder why), as was a mid-length poem of his maturity, Rosalind and Helen. Shelley's notes to Queen Mab and some other prose, mostly connected with the early poems, were also omitted.
The Giant edition, even with these sacrifices made, was still longer than War and Peace. If one accepts that putting almost all the works of Shelley and Keats together in one volume is a desirable thing, then it has to be admitted this was a pretty decent way to do it. As it was an inexpensive commercial edition, it didn't go out of its way to better the established texts of rival editions (dating back to around 1900).
Modern Library later re-released the contents in separate Shelley and Keats volumes that have remained in print to this day; the ML Shelley was the only (fairly) modern, (mostly) complete, (generally) readable - all rival editions were double-column - edition available during the 70s, 80s, 90s; with the single exception of the Oxford University Press edition that was aborted after two volumes (covering the poems up to about 1816), and cost about a zillion dollars per book.
Today there are two expertly-edited, impressively over-annotated complete versions in the works: one American, one British. The American edition has only one volume out (as of mid-2002), containing just the first 150 pages of his poetry, and for about eighty American dollars. Shelley's greatness bloomed a bit late: the consistently readable poetry will only appear from volume 2 on; the great works will start around volume 4, at this rate. The British edition, by Longmans, costs well over a hundred dollars a volume, is not available on Amazon, and seems to only consist of a second volume at this time, representing Laon & Cythna through the Cenci (c.1817-1818). Both these volumes were published years ago; at this rate we should have rival perfectly-edited, entirely unaffordable complete editions of Shelley's entire poetical works by about 2015.
I give all this information to demonstrate that the Modern Library edition, -despite- reprinting inadequate texts of The Triumph of Life and Laon & Cythna / The Revolt of Islam, -despite- omitting the famous notes to Queen Mab (so much better than the poem), -despite- printing some material in hideous double columns...
...is the best volume of this great author's works available.

This is a fantastic collection of Shelley's work. The breadth, depth, and soul of the man is astounding; his love and invention endless. What truly defines this collection over others is Mary Shelley's presence running through it, providing vivid, incredibly poignant and grounded counterpoint to Shelley's flights of fancy.

To get a true sense of his gifts as a poet, you have to dig into the longer work - none of which you're going to find in the Norton Anthology of Poetry. Just another reason this book rocks.

Shelley was a revolutionary, both in form and content. His finer efforts stands alongside the best the English language has produced. Dig it in the way it was written; heart to hand, pen to paper, and unexcerpted.

This disgraceful edition calls itself the "Complete Poems of Percy Bysshe Shelley". It is nothing of the kind.

Much of Shelley's work was suppressed by 19th century editors, poems such as "A Ballad" for example. The poem, beginning "Young Parson Richards stood at his gate", was one of the poems Shelley intended for his projected "Popular Songs" volume, political poems in simple language to be sold amongst workers and their families in England. "A ballad" concerns religious hypocrisy, prostitution and starvation.

Standard editions of Shelley still suppress this poem, 218 years after it was written.

Shelley's first editor, Mary Shelley had no choice about censoring Shelley's more radical poems: she was dependent on Shelley's father Sir Timothy Shelley, for 150 pounds a year that was the different between survival and starvation for herself and her son. And Sir Timothy wanted his dead son, that shameful atheist, democrat and philanthropist, forgotten. Mary Shelley was under financial threat if she preserved her late husband's memory, and in that context her work as editor was brave and loyal.

Let's not forget that people went to jail, during the early and mid-19th century, for publishing Shelley's works: Chartist and other working class and radical publishers.

But by the cusp of the 20th century, Shelley's Victorian editors had no such excuses: and they were neither brave nor loyal. They _could_ have produced a genuinely complete works, but they chose not to. They wanted to give the world a harmless Shelley, a "beautiful and ineffectual angel", as Matthew Arnold called him, and they were prepared to suppress and distort Shelley's works to help preserve that image.

But - amazingly - here we are in the 21st century, and this edition appears. And not only does it perpetuate the various omissions of Shelley's 19th century editors/suppressors (why is _Laon and Cythna_ still appearing in its bowdlerised form as _The Revolt of Islam_?), but THIS EDITION ACTUALLY DELETES CONTROVERSIAL SHELLEY MATERIAL THAT EVEN THE VICTORIANS HAD THE COURAGE TO PRINT.

So if you buy this edition, you'll find many Shelley poems missing, as you will if you buy the Oxford edition of Shelley's Poetical Works. But in this edition you will also find that the notes to _Queen Mab_ have disappeared. Why? The notes to _Queen Mab_ are as integral a part of the poem as Elliot's Notes to _The Wasteland_. The reason is not space, or that the notes are prose. If prose was the problem, why not remove the long prefaces to several of the longer works, or the notes to _Hellas_, or Mrs Shelley's notes?

The reason, clearly, is that Shelley's opinions, as expressed in the notes ot _Queen Mab_ are still controversial. The atheism and the defence of religious freedom including freedom from religion, his hatred of his government's military adventures, his views on marriage, on prostitution, his proto-socialism, are still capable of offending the sort of committee that gets books pulled from libraries, especially school libraries.

And sadly, it seems that there are still publishers who believe that people should be protected from the knowledge that Shelley was a radical, a controversialist on the side of the weak, the poor and powerless, an activist some of whose messages would see him in trouble, still, with those in power today.

Not everyone who buys Shelley _wants_ Shelley the controversialist, of course. He is perhaps the supreme English lyric poet, a poet of nature and of light, idealism and love. But even if you don't particularly want to read the notes to _Queen Mab_, and the other material missing from this volume, you may feel that censorship of a major English poet, whose work and thought should be part of all of our heritage, should not be rewarded or encouraged. Don't buy this edition. There is a complete edition coming, in four volumes, edited by Neil Fraistat. Unfortunately, at US$57 a volume, that will be out of many people's price ranges. However it can be hoped that Fraistat's edition will shame the several publishers of one-volume "Complete Poems" into ending the current censorship and suppression.

But this edition is a huge and disgraceful step _backwards_ in Shelley publishing: actually containing less than the already-inadequate Oxford Complete Poetry. In the meantime, I can only recommend that Shelley lovers buy the Oxford edition, if they can't afford the Fraistat.

No cheers on this one,

Laon (no relation)

I thought the book really kept me on my toes. Mary Shelley had a great insight into what can happen to a person when their knowledge starts to control them. The book was a good read.

I can't speak highly enough of Bloom's notes in general. They are distinctly different from other summary-type works in that much of the book is critical reviews, while the rest is a structural and thematic analysis. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone enrolled in high level literature classes (such as myself) or anyone who wishes to gain a deeper understanding of the novel, not just a cursory plot summary.

The story was great but she needed to go more in depth about the monster because their is too much mystery about him. Like how he was created, where his body parts came from stuff like that.

Because 2/3 of this book is just articles on the work, I would not suggest the book if you are just trying to use it to help you remember details of the book. Still, it does have a pretty good summary and fair character analysi

Mary Shelley was such an interesting person, as indeed many around her were. And yet, for all that, she has been totally dwarfed by her one famous novel - 'Frankenstein' - but even here it is not really Mary Shelley. The novel firstly became famous - not as Mary Shelley's story but as a theatrical adaptation. And since then films have built on and obscured the original genius of 'Frankenstein'.

Surprise, surprise - Mary was a lot better than that. She was a very talented and perceptive writer. There are some recommendations below. 'Maurice' is a beautiful story full of pathos and the regrets of life where it seems impossible to award benefit where it is due without splashing it to where it doesn't belong, or to deliver punishment where it's due without - in the same way - delivering negatives to others who do not deserve it.

The biographical information about Mary Shelley and about 'Maurice' itself is a fascinating story and certainly adds to what is really a very short story - justifying publishing it in a single volume.

Other recommendations:
Mary Shelley - Transformation
Mary Shelley - Matilda
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein (if you haven't read it you may be surprised)
William Godwin - Caleb Williams (Godwin was Mary's father)

My friend offered me this book to read. It's an amazing work. I read the acutal story and then went back and read the introduction and all the accompanying material. The story itself is cute and definately for children. Then you read the intro and all of a sudden you realize that there was so much more that went into the story than you imagined. I highly reccommend it!

This tale is a far cry from Mary's most acclaimed work, Frankenstein. And why not? It was, after all, written for a little girl, and therefore not intended to house any complexities. It is a simple story, broken into three small parts in the fashion of popular adult stories of Shelley's time, and is a tad on the predictable side. It reads almost like a fairytale, with the stolen child reunited with his parents (who happen to be well-off) by pure chance. Despite the story's lack of surprises, I still found it wonderful to settle back into the familiarity of Shelley's writing style with a new text (as will most who have researched her). "The Fisher's Cot" will also appeal to Mary Shelley fans because of the introduction by Claire Tomalin at the very beginning. Tomalin does a good job of setting the scene that the story was written in so that the casual reader will be able to enjoy not only the actual story, but the story behind it as well. Overall, if you're a Shelley fan you definitely should get this book. If you're not, I politely suggest that you review all your options first.

I was disappointed with the beginning of the book. It made me think that the whole story would revolve around the struggles of an exiled prince that sought to reclaim his "rightful" seat of power in his native town. Pretty worn out material.

The book got more interesting as Euthanasia and Beatrice were added to the plot. It seemed though that the women of the story were too much influenced by Castruccio throughout their lives. He lied to and scorned both of them, and seemed to never put them ahead of his addiction to power, yet they were enthusiastically driven mad by the memory of him.

Being that the book was written by a revolutionary female English author who grew up in the early and mid 19th century, I thought the women characters in the novel would reflect a sense of triumphant independence. Maybe back then her characters were exceedingly strong, but not very by today's standards.

I can say that Shelley's writing was enjoyable, and her descriptions were wonderful. I also like the references throughout to Dante and various other historical personalities.

Valperga is Shelley's 1823 historical and fictional account of the life of Castruccio Castracani who lived in the 14th century. You don't need to know anything about Italian history to become immersed and interested in this political novel. Shelley's story is exciting, and the Oxford edition provides numerous notes to clarify the historical figures and situations that are a part of the story. The novel follows the life of Castruccio, from his birth and the exiling of his Ghibelline family by the Guelphs to his rise as a commanding, powerful and tyrannical prince. Shelley writes about Castruccio's political and social endeavors which intertwine with the prince's relationships with two women, the devout, loyal, and powerful Guelph, Euthanasia, and the eccentric and heretical Beatrice. This novel of loyalty, love, war, religion, politics, and the desire for power is a novel that anyone seeking out more work by Mary Shelley should read.

I thought this novel was very interesting. It was an Italian tale written by an English authoress, who did a very fine job of it. Unfortunately, this book is not as recognized as some of Mary Shelley's other work, but hopefully it will be soon.

Ever since I read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I have taken a deep interest in Shelley's life. When searching for books of her's that had supernatural/gothic tendencies like Frankenstein, I found very little aside from The Last Man. When finding Transformation, I was overcome with joy, having discovered a missing work by Shelley that I would never have found any other way.

Transformation is a slim, yet fascinating volume containing short stories that Shelley wrote during the middle of her career. Because of the intresting plots, I was able to finish it in a day. For anybody that is looking for some reading to follow up on after Frankenstein, this is the one.

The book itself contains three stories, but despite the cover price, you won't be disappointed. The first story is "Transformation", in which a desperate and reckless young man makes a bargin with a dwarven-like creature. In exchange for riches, the dwarven creature would would be able to use the man's body as his own for three days. This story is excellent, and by far the best out of the collection.

The second story is "The Mortal Immortal", about a man who was a student of the alchemist Cornelius Agrippa. After drinking a chemical behind his master's back, the man becomes immortal, thus outliving everyone he knew.

The third story is "The Evil Eye". Unlike the others, this one is not supernatural, but it is more or less an adventure/suspense story about an Albanian bandit and his dealings with an old friend of his.

I would divulge more, but I would rather that you discover the details for yourself. These stories are rarely in print and have been neglected from the standard "literary cannon", despite the fact that these tales are very good. Just check it out and you will be pleased.

These three stories illustrate what a great writer Mary Shelley was. For me they did seem to have less drive and purpose than 'Frankenstein' or 'Matilda' but the writing is vivid and atmospheric. They are, like all of Shelley's writing (that I have so far read), about loss and separation. Like Philip K Dick who apparently blamed himself for the death of his twin sister when he was just two days old, Mary blamed herself for the death of her mother days after she was born. That people can carry such unfair burdens that they place upon themselves is tragic, that they can rise above them to produce great works of art that we can all benefit from is miraculous for me.

Other recommendations:
'Matilda' by Mary Shelley
'Caleb Williams' By William Godwin (Mary's father)
any of the fantasy writings by E T A Hoffmann

Check out this excellent "living literature" of a play. In terms of theatrical representation, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's life holds attraction even beyond her monstrously successful literary work (Frankenstein). She was defined as well by her relationship with her poet husband and their interdependent mutual relationships with other Romantic free-thinkers of their day, Wordsworth and Byron. Especially, Byron played a significant role in her sphere as lover of her half-sister, Claire Godwin, and as friend/antagonist/lover of her husband. Such rich psychosexual gleanings and their inherent conflicts could not have long escaped the attention of playwrights. In addition to innumerable plays and films about her "creature," she is one of the fascinating characters of drama herself.

The play Bloody Poetry, by Howard Brenton, examines radical politics, free love and the question of why fervent radicals are done in by their less-than-sterling characters. Mary Shelley is portrayed as a beautiful and free spirit, but also as the "mother," the voice of reason in a family of irresponsible and impulsive geniuses. She alone foresees the price of upsetting the moral dictates of society. Unlike the others, Byron, Percy, and even Claire, she is not on a self-destructive path of narcissism. It makes us think: who is trained in charm in our age? Today, women are given the choice of being intelligent or sexual but never should the twain appear to cohabit the same being. To successfully invoke Mary Shelley onstage is to reconcile both forces. This is the stuff of the stage and screen, the human drama that we want to see, an insight into the things we feel but have no access to outside of our dreams.

Frankenstein is depicted in a graphic novel for kids. It is very good and people will enjoy it. The only difficulty is that the words are so few that some of the story remains cryptic and I suspect some people won't "get" it. I think the point is to make it less scary for kids but more concrete information might be helpful. Still I am going to use it in my classroom for my ESOL students.

Donald F. Glut is the author of "The Frankenstein Legend: A Tribute to Mary Shelley and Boris Karloff" (1973) and "The Frankenstein Catalog: Being a Comprehensive Listing of Novels, Translations, Adaptations, Stories, Critical Works, Popular Articles, Series, Fumetti, Verse, Stage Plays, Films, Cartoons, Puppetry, Radio & Television Programs, Comics, Satire & Humor, Spoken & Musical Recordings, Tape, and Sheet Music Featuring Frankenstein's Monster and/or Descended from Mary Shelley's Novel" (1984). Consequently, there is every reason to believe that he knows the subject matter of "The Frankenstein Archive: Essays on the Monster, the Myth, the Movies, and More."

The topic of these essays is not so much Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's classic novel "Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus," but the phenomenon that was started by the 1818 novel. The 15 essays collected here cover a diverse range of topics from the pop culture perspective: (1) "Frankenstein: The (Untold) True Story" sets the tone by following up on the mistakes and inconsistencies in the Universal films; (2) "The 'Strange' Frankenstein Monster" is a celebration of Glenn Strange, who surpassed Boris Karloff as the most exploited and recognizable movie Frankenstein Monster of them all; (3) "A Forgotten Frankenstein?" is an obituary for the stuntman Dale Van Sickle; (4) "Peter Cushing: 'Dr. Frankenstein, I Presume,'" is a profile of the English actors roles as Baron/Dr. Frankenstein in the Hammer film; (5) "'Young Frankenstein'--Classic in the Making" is an enjoyable look at the wonderful film by Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder; (6) "Super Heroes vs. Frankenstein (and Company)" is about the battles between the Mexican superhero Santo and the Monster in a series of Sixties films and similar examples; (7) "'What's Up, Doc Frankenstein (Jekyll and Fu Manchu)?'" is about the Monster and other such characters appearing in animated cartoons; (8) "The Beatles Meet Frankenstein" is about the encounters of the cartoon Fab Four with various monsters; (9) "A Score of Frankenstein Misconceptions" is exactly what the title promises (e.g., whether the seen of the Monster drowning the child Maria in the original "Frankenstein" movie ever shown in prints released theatrically in the U.S.); (10) "Frankenstein on the Home-Movie Screen" is actually about amateur back yard productions, including one made by Glut with Glenn Strange; (11) "'This is your Life, Frankenstein's Monster" is about Boris Karloff's 1957 appearance on the famous surprise biography show; (12) "Frankenstein Sings--And Dances, Too" is about the musical "I'm Sorry, the Bridge Is Out, You'll Have to Spend the Night"; "Frankenstein in Four Colors" covers comic book appearances by the Monster; (13) "'The Monster of Frankenstein' (Almost) Returns" continues in a similar vein regarding comic book; and (14) "The New Adventures of Frankenstein" is the history of a series of novels written by Glut.

As Glut observes in his Preface, this book is assembled and stitched together from various places they had been published. There is no clear argumentative structure to the arrangement, just the common denominator of the Frankenstein phenomenon. However, Glut is clearly knowledgeable about that subject and able to bring a critical eye to the discussions even though he is obviously a fan of all things Frankenstein. The first and ninth essays are the one that will be of most interest to "scholars" interested in this topic area. My only complaint is that there was not more about the "Frankenstein" comic books that Mike Ploog drew for Marvel in 1972. But I still have all of those, so that is a minor issue. Consequently, "The Frankenstein Archive" might not be on the level of academic scholarship, but from a fanzine perspective it is solid journalism.

Amazing Competence of the Monster: Liberals Encounter Revolutionaries (or Liberals and Counter-Revolutionaries).

Friedrich Nietzsche recalls Napoleon Bonaparte's exclamation, "Voila un home!" after the Emperor's first meeting with Johan Wolfgang von Goethe (in Beyond Good and Evil). In his early forties during the French Revolution, Goethe had been groomed to the literary fashion of the rational, repressed, and scientific Enlightenment. Yet it may be easier to classify Goethe with a later generation, the sensitive, dark, and emotional Romantic Movement. Writing in the 1880's, Nietzsche situated Goethe as a proxy for a rising "spirit of Germany." The ultimate imperialist, Napoleon, had come face to face with this spirit and was impressed to find a man where he "expected only a German."

But during the earliest decades of the century, the romantics still considered Bonaparte to be a defender of the revolution. A corollary moment was frozen in time by Mary Shelley. When the liberals of the enlightenment looked into the face of the radical revolutionary, presumably a monster of their own creation, their response was horror. More important to the point, when a romantic novelist observed this interaction between liberal and radical, what did she perceive? Mary Shelley watched this encounter seeing a frightened and untrustworthy element, the enlightened liberal, who underestimated the value and humanity of his own creation. Shelley accuses these liberals of abandoning the revolution at its most vulnerable stage. If the enlightened liberals did not deserve retribution, they would receive it nonetheless.

Social revolution, one foreseeable outcome of Enlightenment ideas projected onto the surface of aristocratic hegemony, might be blamed by the threatened for chaos, suffering, and mob rule. Yet there is much evidence suggesting Mary Shelley romanticized the revolutionary hero, and damned the enlightened liberals as a class of timid and wavering reactionaries. First, there are contextual clues. Mary Goodwin Shelley, the daughter of the radical anarchist writer William Goodwin, was herself no moderate. Biographical details of her travels, associations and the causes to which she clung indicate very radical leanings. Perhaps more compelling than this kind of external evidence, the narrative structure of Frankenstein suggests that Shelley offers Victor Frankenstein as an unreliable eye witness, himself implicated in the tragic consequences he attributes to the monster.

Initially, the story of the "monster" is told by Dr. Victor Frankenstein. And Victor's narrative is, in turn, relayed by an Englishman, Robert Walton. During the enlightenment, an eyewitness account by a Doctor of Natural Philosophy endorsed by an educated Englishman was formidable surety. Yet, a comparison of Victor's description of the unnamed "monster" with the creature's own account provides more textual clues to Shelley's attack on European liberalism. Readers could rightly expect to encounter an awkward, dull-witted, and withdrawn monster. We are, after all, tricked into this expectation. Shelley provides the first view of the living creature as it was seen through its creator's eyes. Frankenstein recalls that as he awoke from a nightmare:

"I beheld the wretch--the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did nothear; one hand was stretched out seemingly to detain me, but I escaped, and rushed down the stairs" (58)


A reader might reasonably expect to encounter a character from the early films which were influenced by the book, a monster of the "OH GOD IT LIVES" variety. Yet in Frankenstein, when the unnamed "monster" finally steps up to the podium of first person narration in chapter XI, an abrupt reconsideration is demanded.

"It is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original era of my being: all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct. A strange multiplicity of sensations seized me, and I saw, felt, heard, and smelt, at the same time; and it was, indeed, a long time before I learned to distinguish between the operation of my various senses."


Within two sentences, the "Monster" has become a someone; "Voila un home!" This sentient being expresses his individual and singular experience, the agony and confusion of achieving consciousness in a world of heat, cold, hunger, thirst, and loneliness. Missing only the sense of taste (a possible pun on the tasteful attitudes of the liberal classes toward the revolting workers) the "creature" emerges into the world already fully grown and alone. The monster's account provides ample evidence of an eloquent and sensitive human being. And Frankenstein's broken promise to provide the "creature" with companionship incited the murderous rampages. Dare we use the descriptors "Heroic" and "Romantic?"

Despite what a reader may learn from Victor Frankenstein's narrative, the "monster" has become competent, articulate, and sensitive. And by comparing this superhuman competence to the timid and unreliable Victor Frankenstein, we can gain an important insight into the attitudes Mary Shelley may have held toward both the reactionary liberal and the emerging revolutionary.

This is the story of a literary mystery that a professor stumbled across, when editing a collection of the letters of Mary Shelley (author of FRANKENSTEIN, widow of the poet, and daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin). Who were David Lyndsay and Walter Sholto Douglas? Who was Isabella Robinson Douglas? Why the mysterious references to Lord M? The author spent time researching the private family papers of the family of a notable Scottish family, the birth and marriage records of Isabella Robinson Douglas's daughter, the wife of a very prominent Victorian man. And she found - not only a mystery that crosses gender and class lines, but also a mystery that points out how much the information we take for granted from such worthy primary sources as birth and marriage certificates, or entries in the august Dictionary of National Biography, can be false or falsified deliberately. At one level, this book should appeal to academic sleuths with a love of history and a particular fondness for the period 1815-1850 (roughly, crossing the late Regency and early Victorian period); at another level, this should appeal to any serious reader of historical fiction who is interested in women's lives, and who wonders how far the truth may or may not deviate from the fictional variants.

A suggestion: truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, although it is hard for some (mostly male) critics to swallow. Private scandals and peccadilloes (usually of a sexual nature) have been covered over for decades, even centuries. Today, an academic researching on a different subject or an amateur genealogist trying to find out more about his or her ancestor/ancestress may stumble across the long-hidden truth. This book MARY DIANA DODS is not just about an ambitious woman who is fairly ruthless in attempting to better her social standing (and that of her daughter) but the fate of many illegitimate children in the 19th century as well as young widows and unmarried daughters who were dependent on the males in their family for recognition as well as financial support. And now the spoilers follow -

A short summary with spoilers follows (do not read further if you want to solve the mystery along with the author)

Mary Shelley meets a couple Mr and Mrs Walter Sholto Douglas abroad, or does she? It turns out that Walter Sholto Douglas is a woman, and one with an astonishing if unacknowledged paternal pedigree. And his "wife" Isabella Robinson is apparently not his lesbian lover, but a young woman of moderately good family who has fallen into disgrace (a pre-marital pregnancy). To avoid shame and to legitimize her child, she and "Walter Sholto Douglas" (whose name gives a clue to her paternal ancestry) pretend to be man and wife; that is, Douglas, or rather Mary Diana Dods, becomes a man, aided by Shelley and her friends. And then, Isabella Robinson is involved with other men (hardly a surprise), and Douglas/Dods disappears. Isabella recreates herself as the mother-in-law of a Privy Councillor who is fully aware of his wife's shady family circumstances (born illegitimate, born into a marriage that never existed, to a father who was actually a woman). Their deceptions are revealed only when an American academic, puzzling over Mary Shelley's correspondents more than a century later, finds out that firstly two of the missing correspondents are the same, and secondly, that they are a woman. One of her male identities was that of Walter Sholto Douglas. The book should be read and savoured not for this and other revelations (as to how Dods/Douglas and Robinson pulled off their initial deception, or how Isabella Robinson maneuvered her daughter into a suitable marriage), but for the process by which such discoveries are made - hard work, an eye for detail, a memory for names and dates, and a good dose of serendipidity.

The only reason I don't rate this higher is that I wished that firstly, there had been an appendix listing the documentary trail followed by Betty Bennett, and that secondly, there had been a listing of the names and characters (with a summary of their future lives) in the story in a second appendix. Although Bennett discusses the lives of aristocratic bastards in several chapters, and in one chapter in particular where she compares the fate of the widowed Georgiana Carter (nee Dods) and her unmarriageable sister Mary Diana Dods, it would also have been helpful to put this in greater context. For example, how did their father's treatment of them compare with that of other aristocratic fathers? How did their lives compare with that of unmarried or widowed young women, penniless and dependent totally on men? The emphasis in this book was on the process of discovery, and thus these other parts to the story were somewhat neglected in my opinion.

This is still a book that I recommend highly. Rating: 4.5