Talk:List of works by Mary Shelley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] The Pole

Gittings and Manton (164–65) suggest that Claire Clairmont co-authored this with Mary Shelley. According to them, it was published in The English Annual for 1836 as by "the author of Frankenstein", and the two shared the payment. If, as our bibliography states, it was published in 1832, this would scotch that idea, though.qp10qp (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have seen no other discussion of its co-authorship. Should we add a footnote? Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Via Google Books, I found a good discussion of the issue in Charles Robinson's 1990 edition of the Collected Tales and Stories, p. 399. ([1]). He says (aha!) that it was published in both The Court Magazine (1832) and The English Annual (1836). He traces the partial attribution to Clairmont back to Bradford A. Booth (1938) and endorses it. Booth and Robinson are cited (Google Books) in the entry for The Pole in The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (1999), p. 1075. qp10qp (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Awadewit asked me to look this article over and, to the non-expert, it seems excellent! :D The gifts and devotion of its author are apparent in every section. :) The following are some suggestions to help convey its graces:

  • I think I would waken the article to life by adding perhaps 2-3 paragraphs to the lead to introduce Mary Shelley, to set her works in their historical context, to survey her works, and more generally to provide a red thread that the reader can pursue, Theseus-like, through the labyrinth. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - the lead looks so forlorn right now, doesn't it? I was going to do this when I finished putting together the list. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The same might be said for the sections. Perhaps 3-4 sentences for each to survey the list and place those works in the context of her whole life? Not by bread alone...but perhaps with sauce? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. The works are often discussed by genre in the criticism, so that shouldn't be too hard. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that scholars will find this a simple-minded question, but the expression "Printed for X" makes me wonder "by whom?". That is, I'm guessing that that wording means that there was some unnamed printer who actually printed the work for a noble, or for another publisher? I also wasn't sure how to parse the publisher information for Frankenstein: "London: Printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mayor, & Jones"? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that means there was a printer. We don't always know who it was and it is usually not included in the publication information. The reason the bibliography entry appears this way is because the title page does. If you think about it, the "Printed for" is still implicit - publishing houses have just dropped those words. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It may not be customary, but using boldface type for volume numbers might help to spice up, you know, give more visual interest to eash line, e.g., "The Bride of Modern Italy". The London Magazine 9 (1824): 351–363. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't bring myself to do that. It conforms to no known bibliographic standard that I know! I just can't! It would be so painful. :) It just looks so wrong. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the name really "Charles Jũgill"? The tilde seemed so — umm, exotic. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, that is supposed to be an umlaut. I can barely see the symbols in the box under the editing window and I must have picked the wrong one! Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "No date", yes. Expanded in brackets. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are square brackets needed around "and others" in the author column of the first table? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure yet, actually. I have to find out what the original title page says. It is surprisingly hard to find out! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For brevity, perhaps you could put the Keepsake references into a Bibliography? Their publishing data are repeated in the Short story and Poems sections. Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps add the Clemit and Markley reference to the Bibiography? Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to figure out a better way to discuss those volumes. That is actually "Volume 4" of the Literary Lives and Other Writings. I'll probably list each volume separately or something, eventually. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The fragment table might benefit from more explanation? I wasn't sure how to interpret the manuscript codes, and the titles were...intriguing. My imagination starts spinning yarns when I see something as tantalizingly ambiguous... ;) Mina H. (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, I'm going to add a "Notes" section and explain each fragment. There are lots more fragments to add, too. Actually, I don't know how to interpret the manuscript codes, either. I assume if one went to the library, that would become clear? I suppose I could always write to them and ask for an explanation. Or maybe there is some information on their website. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You know how much I appreciate your advice! Awadewit (talk)