Percy Byshhe Shelley...

[fajrdrako]

Percy Bysshe Shelley was born today, 215 years ago. Happy birthday to one of my favourite people!

I was reading an article about him today, a review of a new book about him by Janet Todd called Death and the Maidens, which, it appears, blames Shelley for the suicides of his acquaintances and the deaths of several of his children. Shelley's reputation has been having ups and downs since he was eighteen years old and was expelled from Oxford for espousing atheism; I'm sure his reputation will survive another book, but I find it annoying to hear the book described as 'frank' when it is obviously simply hostile. For instance: blaming him for Fanny Wollestonecraft's suicide, and then for not paying for her funeral, seems absurd to me - he hadn't seen her in several years, had never had any responsibility for her, and barely had enough money for himself and his immediate family to be able to eat. I wonder if she blames him for the suicide of Castlereagh, because Shelley said nasty things about him.

No need to return to the hagiographic view of Shelley that some have held, that he was a cross between a saint and an angel. That's just as bad. He was a polyamorous poet who paid heavily in his own lifetime for his convictions; whose viewpoint was both caring and eloquent. That's good enough for me.

Comments

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

He was a polyamorous poet who paid heavily in his own lifetime for his convictions

In other words, he used notions of 'free love', highly dubious in a pre-effective contraception age, to exploit very young women and abandon them, and say it wasn't his fault.

Sorry, but I think he's a Grade-A shit.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously you're in good company!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think much the same about Burns and Byron. It's the hypocrisy: all the high-flown idealism in the writing, but treating real-life people, especially women, as essentially disposable. In comparison, the likes of Villon and Rimbaud didn't pretend to be other than what they were.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I see the hypocrisy in the people who wrote about them: I don't know enough about Burns to say whether he was a hypocrite, but Byron and Shelley pretended to no idealism in the matter - Byron wrote about the tempations of the flesh in eloquent language, and Shelley truly believed in free love. He never thought any women were disposable.

I like Villon and Rimbaud, too.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

He never thought any women were disposable.

His quoted remarks seem pretty callous. These were young girls he seduced and abandoned: to refer to them merely as "acquaintances" in the OP seems disingenuous, as if you're trying to play down what was going on. If someone shags a girl and gets her pregnant, she's more than "an acquaintance", even when she gets fished out of a river.

And as I said, there could not be real 'free love' in an age without effective contraception. Now, yes, when most sensible people know about safe sex (for health and contraceptive reasons); but then, it was just an excuse for libertinage and exploitation, a way of getting idealistic young girls into bed by claiming it was 'liberating', and running away from responsibilities.

These writers posed as apostles of equality and liberty, & c, but a predatory attitude towards women is surely not a part of that. It shows a lack of respect, for one thing. And in the cases of Shelley and Byron, just another manifestation of the aristocratic sense of entitlement they claimed to deplore in politics.

Are you inclined to be indulgent because you find them attractive?

Re: Villon and Rimbaud – yes, great poets, and with few illusions about themselves. If you're going to behave appallingly, at least have the guts to be honest about it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Shelley never abandoned Mary - they were still together at the time of his death. He was surprised when Harriet Westbrook didn't want to accept a threesome with Mary in the first place, since she'd claimed to be as into such things as he was. (So Claire went in her place.) To emphasize the women's youth seems unfair to me - Shelley was only a couple of years older than they were, still a teen himself. I don't see Shelley as predatory towards women, I see him as liking sex, and yes, that's one of the things I find attractive about them. And which I relate to.

Byron was very different, and I don't defend his actions towards women (or men); I don't admire him as I do Shelley,but I find him endlessly entertaining to read about. He wasn't a bad man. He was often out of control, but hurt himself as much as others, and I forgive a lot for the charm of his poetry.

It's their personalities, not their looks, that I find attractive, for various differing reasons. Though I don't know what Villon and Rimbaud looked like. (I've seen pictures but don't remember.)

No point arguing about motives! I suspect I couldn't convince you in a million years that Shelley was a likeable man. You know how you react when people vilify Conrad, and believe they are in the right? Well, there I am with Shelley - his motives misinterpreted, ideas twisted, quotes out of context - it's easy to make someone look bad.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Though I don't know what Villon and Rimbaud looked like. (I've seen pictures but don't remember.)

Villon: no pics, but from self-description, weedy, balding, nasty cough.
Rimbaud: disreputable teenager.

I suspect I couldn't convince you in a million years that Shelley was a likeable man.

No. I don't like irresponsibility and fecklessness. The Byron-Shelley clique strike me as terribly immature emotionally: spoilt posh kids acting up. However tight things were financially, they were never in any danger of having to work in a mill. They were privileged, and thus had the time to indulge themselves emotionally.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

He was surprised when Harriet Westbrook didn't want to accept a threesome with Mary in the first place, since she'd claimed to be as into such things as he was. (So Claire went in her place.)

Ahem! I'm sorry, but I think that casually suggesting threesomes is despicably sordid behaviour.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Casual? It wasn't casual.

And this isn't the only thing we agree to differ on!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

It's just all too "sex-'n'-drugs Sixties rock-stars and groupies" in ambience.

I'm also reminded of a girl I knew at university, who had aspirations as a poet. She wanted to go on a creative writing course that was run by a well-known poet, because she thought it would be good for her writing if she seduced him. (She had already done this with another poet, again, a much older man, on a previous course). She was devastated that she didn't get a place on the course. I queried her assumption that the poet would automatically have fallen in with her plans anyway. The fact that she had a husband (a fellow student, a mild-mannered archæologist) wasn't on her radar. She wanted an 'open' marriage, he didn't. They eventually split up. I had no sympathy with her, since she seemed to think that poetry was some sort of sexually-transmitted disease that you could get by sleeping with better-known poets.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I chuckle at the notion of poetry as a sexually-transmitted disease. I've certainly known people who have messed up their lives - and the lives of others - in such irresponsible seductions, though usually not using poetry as their excuse.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

It's the arrant selfishness and egocentricity of it that disgusts me. All that mattered was what she wanted: it didn't cross her mind that the poets might not find her attractive (or even not be heterosexual!), and she certainly didn't think about her husband. Everyone was simply supposed to fall in with her wishes, and if they didn't, they were "square".

They were younger than myself, and I think the young can be alarmingly callous, through lack of empathy with others, and a tendency to think with their knickers instead of their brains.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Your former friend does sound alarmingly like a young women I used to know. She was like a train out of control in her relationships. People found it terrifyingly easy to love her. She was highly intelligent, and in other ways admirable. But - as you say - callous. Without even realizing or recognizing it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yup. I broke off contact with Penelope (ironic name if ever there was one!) because of it.

And I see exactly the same traits in the Early 19C Romantics.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I can see you do!

And I can also see that in various ways, what attracts me to them is what repels you.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

You see, I don't think it was a good reason to dump Harriet, but a very good reason to re-consider the wisdom of a threesome. I don't have a problem with the idea of multiple relationships, kept separate (in what might be considered traditionally the French manner). But it's expecting a hell of a lot for someone to accept a threesome.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes; some people would like it, some wouldn't.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

So do you not think it was selfish for him to go ahead, drafting in a replacement, without much thought as to her?

You see what I mean about the callousness of young people who think only of their own sexual gratification?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Er... no, I can't agree with you, because I find it easier to imagine myself in Shelley's position than hers. I see your point but I see it as unfortunate for everyone. Shelley never pretended to want monogamy. Harriet had said she wanted polyandrous relationships, and then refused to accept it. I don't think anyone was intentionally being cruel to anyone, but it was a matter of irreconciliable differences.

No point discussing it! It upsets me to hear you dissing my hero, and I'm sure we'll never come to agreement on it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I can't agree with you, because I find it easier to imagine myself in Shelley's position than hers.

I'm sorry, but I find that a disturbing way of looking at things. Are you saying that this means her pov doesn't matter, because you can't identify with it?

Harriet had said she wanted polyandrous relationships, and then refused to accept it.

Well, it's one thing for people to agree in theory, but different when it actually comes to it in practice. (This was what happened with Jon and Penelope.) I think under such circumstances it's more honourable and decent (outmoded concepts, I admit, but then I'm an outmoded sort of human being who probably shouldn't exist any more) to put one's own selfish desires on the back-burner out of consideration for the other person.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

re you saying that this means her pov doesn't matter, because you can't identify with it?

Not at all. Just that I can't imagine myself being in her position. If I were in that position, I wouldn't be me - wouldn't handle it the way she did.

it's one thing for people to agree in theory, but different when it actually comes to it in practice.

Absolutely. I've seen it happen.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

But you still think that pursuing personal gratification is preferable?

I've written to you off-LJ. I hope our friendship is salvageable, because we have so many fandoms in common. I could understand saying you liked the works but not the people (that's true of so many writers, who were unbearable as human beings), but this…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have loved Shelley since I was a teen, warts and all, I'm hardly likely to stop now! I understand that you disapprove of him.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I'd say that the only way that it seems to work well is if the sexual orientations are such that it is a genuine three-way relationship, not just 2 parties servicing one.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, that would be an ideal.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Some of the Rivera/Kahlo relationships worked that way, with them having mistresses they shared; or the rumours re: the Duke of Devonshire, Georgiana and Bess. I think it's the only way of keeping these things stable. Otherwise, the compartmentalisation of relationships (spouses, mistress, lover & c) is more humane and dignified.

[katkim.livejournal.com]

I wonder if she blames him for the suicide of Castlereagh

*shudders* That just brought back repressed memories of Whigs, Tories and A-level history class!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oops - sorry! Didn't mean to cause any traumas from the past!

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

As a general rule, I think that biographers should not strongly dislike their subjects (barring subjects like psychopaths and mass murderers). Of course, you can and should denounce some of their actions or views, if warranted, but it seems to me that a completely non-sympathetic biography is either a) ghastly to read, b) superficial, or c) simply an exercise in being wittily nasty.

Such a Strange Lady by Janet Hitchman was for quite a long time the only available bio of Dorothy L. Sayers, and it was just dreadful for a whole bunch of reasons, but, in particular, because Hitchman used the book as an opportunity to disparage Sayers.

I don't like hagiographies either, particularly of people who weren't saints in any sense of the word. Harold Acton's book on Nancy Mitford was just painful to read.

(I have no opinions on Shelley -- I haven't read enough on him recently enough to say exactly what type of man he was. Love some of his poetry, though.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think that biographers should not strongly dislike their subjects

There is a biography of John Lennon that makes him sound horrible; I don't think he really was. Ditto one of the bios I read of Sir Richard Burton. Nor were either of them saintly - but it's easy to twist the viewpoint so that anyone can look bad, and it's harder to redeem someone who is painted as a villain than to villainize someone who was pretty much all right.

Love some of his poetry, though.

I think that's the best he would wish for!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

But there are/were disagreeable people out there, and one cannot pretend they were otherwise.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and basically what I am saying is that I disagree with these biographers, with historical grounds for doing so, just as you would disagree with those who vilify Conrad.

Obviously when it's people I don't personally life or feel neutral about, I don't react as strong; or when it's people about whom I know less. (I suppose the knowing more about people, and caring more about them, tend to go together.)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I know a good deal about Psycho Pete, and I find it appalling when some writers try to let him off the hook on account of being "a great man". I think this is a far bigger problem in biography: indulgence given to anti-social/cruel behaviour because the author is a fanboy/girl of the subject.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I see it as all part of the same continuum: a failure to be objective about the subject, and a failure to be honest about the material. Maybe some people believe accomplishment justifies cruelty - I don't know. I've certainly written papers on peoply I disliekd - Governor Charles Lawrence comes to mind. I certainly wouldn't want to spend time with him for the length of a whole book, though he was rather interesting to pursue for the length of an undergraduate honour's paper.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Some writers are sometimes willing to put realpolitik above humanity on paper in a way that they wouldn't dream of doing in their real lives. They shrug off people getting hurt or killed.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a biographer, I can say that I've chosen to work on people I like, and that as I've found out more about them, the better I've liked them. I'm not sure that many people actually begin a work disliking the subject. However, what can happen is that a biographer can start off well-disposed towards the subject, only come to despise or dislike him/her because of what is discovered. That, I think, is more common, and leads to the air of disillusion about some biographies.