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

[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.