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]

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.