Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proserpine (play)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:01, 29 August 2008 [1].

Proserpine (play) edit

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)


I'm slowly working towards a Mary Shelley featured topic! Here is the next installment of the works of Mary Shelley. I am still trying to get a scan of the title page from a rare books library, but it is a time-consuming and altogether uncertain affair, so I have decided to nominate the article without it, hoping to add it later. I believe that this article meets featured article criteria. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Some of the paragraphs seem a little short, as do some of the topics. Perhaps merge the first two categories (Background and Composition) and merge some of the paragraphs? Also, could you perhaps reword "However, the play has received scant scholarly attention.", which is a subjective statement and could be tightened. The Genre section seems to be a little misplaced, as some of the information would be more vital to a reader (as I found through reading) closer to the top than after the introduction on the play, such as what it was "meant to be" genre wise. On p. 504 of Madwoman in the Attic (I'm sure you have it), they list the various uses of Persephone stories, perhaps that could be added? You would also need a section on her interpretation of Proserpine, as she gains a lot of her understanding from Milton's version (more background can be found in Maud Bodkin's Archetypal Patterns in Poetry p. 97, 162,165). There are some other books, but I don't want to inundate you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topics are short because very little has been written on this play. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think merging the paragraphs of "Background" and "Composition" would be helpful since these are entirely different topics. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the play has received scant scholarly attention" is not subjective - it can be backed up from several essays (Richardson comes to mind most immediately). I'm not sure how the sentence could be tightened, but I would welcome any assistance. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "scant" was the subjective part of the sentence. It can mean a lot of things, as it is a comparative term. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I get home, I can get you the source. I assure you the source backs up this claim, even if it doesn't use the precise word. Let's assume some good faith here, please? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is partially available on Google Books here. Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the line "Mary Shelley's plays have held a marginal reputation among critics..." which is interesting and a strong way to emphasize the point. However, I didn't see scant. Any particular page number? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases explaining that studies of Mary Shelley "often neglect to mention them [her plays]" (124) reveal this. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the concept that I am bothered with. It was the word "scant", which is ambiguous and is a term based on comparing to things to each other. It just seems that it could be altered to be more accurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please suggest a better word? Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did above. The plays holding a "marginal reputation" combined with the line you cited "neglect to mention" could be worked into "However, the play has been either marginalized or neglected by critics" with a cite to the page would be more than enough. This was only a comment concern, so it wasn't a big deal. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all of the information in the "Genre" section is relevant to that topic. Could you be more precise about how you think the article could be reorganized? Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The background on "closet drama" comes in the Genre section, but seems to be pertinent earlier on. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "earlier on" - where would this be better placed? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background section. Something to show her earlier understanding of the form. Why choose a myth, where did the myth come from, and why this genre, would be important background topics. Did she have experience with the genre (yes), who else wrote in the genre (friends, people she read), why pick this instead of a poem or the rest (if possible to find). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this would all be synthesis research, in my opinion (if I could even uncover these facts). Like you, I am very reticent to combine research done on one topic (even if Shelley-related) with research done on this play. I am surprised you would be suggesting it. I have tried my best to explain the main points scholars make about this play. These are not topics that they have been interested in yet, however. The fact that the play is children's literature, for example, has not been examined, either. There is much that is missing from this article, but it is not for lack of research on my part. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, this line would be OR "For example, she read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophical treatise, Emile (1762), and his sentimental novel, La Nouvelle HéloÏse (1761) as well as Thomas Day’s children’s book The History of Sandford and Merton (1783–89).[11]". Your page is lacking major aspects that are necessary for an FA. I suggest you fill them in. And if you can't, then it doesn't match comprehensiveness. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't looked at the source: that is copied directly from a list in the source that includes all of those books, so it isn't OR. Please do your own research before accusing someone of original research. The article isn't lacking information that has been published. I fully agree that the article is not comprehensive in an absolute sense, but what you are asking for has not been published.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 August 2008
You have mistaken my point. Your claims about Original Research would follow to the same usage in practice. If you feel that it is improper and "OR" to include what she knew about mythology and what books she read on the topic involved with it, then it would be exactly as improper to discuss her readings on education. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the source I quoted this from says that these works were relevant for MS's writing of this play specifically. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see education mentioned again in the article. Am I missing something?Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is this: "Her efforts to publish the play in these periodicals and journal entries written during the play's composition suggest that Proserpine was meant to be children's literature." - The scholar that I took this list of works from uses the list to make several points. I used the list to support the points that recur in the scholarly literature. Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is children's literature educational? Or did she read the works on education in order to further understand how to write for children? Emile would seem to suggest either or. What is her background in children's literature? What is her style with children's literature? Does she write for fun? To inspire? For profit? It would be nice to include something to establish what she thought on the works overall. 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(out indent) Since no one has written on this topic (as I mentioned above), we are left to wonder. Happily we won't have to wonder much longer since I am writing a conference paper-cum-article on it. Hopefully in a few years it will be published. :) Answering all of these questions would be wonderful, but I assure you it is original research. Awadewit (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the biographies? I know I've seen quite a few things on Mary and Emile. This is a background section, so you can quote passages which provide general understanding and thought without having to mention Persephone at the same time. I almost know that people wrote about her work in children's lit, especially for her dad, which was started with an economic purpose. Tomorrow I will start diving into some biographies and get you some quotes if you want to incorporate any of the information in. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on how her readings was related to the composition of this play, which is what is relevant to this article. I included what scholars have said is important for background information. Mary Shelley didn't write any children's lit for her father - see the latest Pickering and Chatto edition of Mary Shelley's works which no longer attributes Mounseer Nongtongpaw to her (presumably what you were thinking of). She probably wrote a draft of something like that, but we no longer have it. You may not believe it, but I have done extensive research on this play and a fair bit on Mary Shelley on her works since I just worked on the Mary Shelley biography. Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought a lot about including a "Persephone in literature" section based on Gubar and the many critics who have written on this topic, but I think that topic is more relevant for the Persephone article, not an article about Mary Shelley's play. This article should focus on MS's adaptation. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you'd have to do both, especially if you mention it in the Genre section to this effect. Her context, especially when lumped into lists with others, hints at this direction. Also, Shelley is using one version of Proserpine, which conveniently traces back to Milton, who Shelley was quite intellectually attached to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this traces back to Milton at all. Gubar, in her article about the Persephone myth, never makes that claim. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Gubar isn't the end all to be all. There are many biographies, and I know for one that she read Paradise Lost (which includes Milton's interpretation of Proserpine). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Milton was very important to Mary Shelley (Frankenstein comes to mind), but the influence of Milton on Proserpine is not a theme that comes up in the scholarship on the play. I've read every scrap on the play. We are very limited in what we can say, I'm afraid. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't read enough scholarship, as you have failed to produce the bulk of information necessary for her background that would show where she would have been exposed to the idea of "Proserpine". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But no scholar has said "this is where Mary Shelley was exposed to Proserpine and this is why she wrote the play". I cannot produce information that is not available. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions 1) Citation "Pascoe, 187; Caretti, 200.", what information does Pascoe say and what does Caretti say? 2) "Richardson, 125; see also Carlson, 362." Is this a note, is the "see also" important", and if so why isn't the extra information included? 3) "Pascoe, 186; Caretti, 202." same as 1. 4) "Richardson, 128, 136; see also Purinton, 395-96." same as 2. 5) "Gubar, 306; Richardson, 129." same as 1. 6) "See, for example, Purinton, 395." Right now, the line is vague, could this note be incorporated into the main body of the text? 7) "Feminist poet Adrienne Rich wrote that "the loss of the daughter to the mother, the mother to the daughter, is the essential female tragedy",[53] and it is this tragedy that Mary Shelley discusses in her play.[54]" The line as written (by having the quote first, explanation second) to suggest that the poem is a response or consciously connected to Mary Shelley - is this correct? 8) "However, in the last fifteen years or so, beginning with the publication of the The Other Mary Shelley in 1993, more attention has been paid to Mary Shelley's "other" works, such as her dramas." Do we have a source for this? 9) What was her source for Ovid? Many relied on the primary Latin, but even those skilled at Latin, like Keats, relied on translations by those like George Sandys, that not only translated the work but contained commentary on the work that would provide a context that would be important to consider. Sorry if it seems that I am being tough. The use of mythology by Romantics was my primary specialty. I would look through any biographies of Shelley that you have for the following works - George Sandys Ovid's Metamorphosis Englished, Mythologized and Represented in Figures, Tooke's Pantheon of the Heathen Gods, Joseph Spence's Polymetis, and John Lempriere's Classical Dictionary. Hunt, Keats, Byron and Percy owned these four works, and these four served as an important foundation for their understanding of Ovid. It would seem to be necessary to mention if they show up in her biographies, as it would show that she isn't drawing exactly from Ovid, but an Enlightenment filtered interpretation of Ovid. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes that include two citations mean that the critics make the same point - these are bolstering citations. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes that include "see also" mean that the critic makes a similar point, but I did not feel it was worth making the distinction in an article for the general reader. I thought anyone going through the footnotes, however, might appreciate the reference. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line as written (by having the quote first, explanation second) to suggest that the poem is a response or consciously connected to Mary Shelley - is this correct? - The quote explains the general kind of tragedy that MS is writing. I think this is clear. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Mary Shelley - The book itself is the evidence. I could probably find a statement to this effect in the Cambridge Companion or some such book, but I'm not at home right now. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have scoured the sources on Mary Shelley - this is the information available. The kinds of details you are asking for in relation to Ovid are not available. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll have to look it up on Monday. I think she was influenced by Sandys, but I'll have to get a credible source for you. The only other important consideration in that list would be Spence, because his work is a detailed iconography. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fabulous if you could uncover anything else related directly to the play. I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Awadewit is looking up more information, any problems will be fixed, etc. No reason to oppose this, as it clearly meets all the formatting and grammatical concerns, which are the most important thing. These rest is all subject area specifics. Oppose - I'm sorry but I will have to oppose at this time. At my fourth reading, I discovered that there is very little information present on her knowledge of Ovid, which I have read in her biographies before. As of right now, there is only a loose connection between her source material and the play. Also, there is nothing about the structure of the play or a defined system of characters for the play. I would recommend incorporating some of the more standard play setups. The piece also leaves out the influence of Milton and has vague likes such as: "For example, she read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophical treatise, Emile (1762), and his sentimental novel, La Nouvelle HéloÏse (1761) as well as Thomas Day’s children’s book The History of Sandford and Merton (1783–89)". The problems right now is comprehensiveness. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked half of the biographies written on Mary Shelley for this article. Most of the biographies don't cover this play at all. The reason there is only a loose connection between Ovid and the play is because that is all that the sources can support. I'm not sure a list of characters would enhance the article at all, especially considering it is a closet drama. As far as I am aware, Milton did not influence this play in particular. Milton influenced Mary Shelley's works in general (see Mary Shelley#Novels - another article I worked on). The background reading is provided to help explain what she was doing at the time she was writing the play. I can no more than the scholarship has done, I'm afraid, and there is just not much published on this play. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used Gubar's article on the Persephone myth rather than Madwoman, as it has a lot of detail about Mary Shelley's play. If you would like, I can have Susan Gubar look over this article herself. She works in the same department I am in and I would be happy to ask her to look over it. That might cut the Gordian knot - she is clearly more of an expert in this field than either you or I, since she has published the most important work on this play. However, that would take a lot of time. Let me know if you want me to ask her. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look for the play. Look for Ovid, Sandys, Milton, and then check those sections to find out where she got her understanding of mythology. I'm sure at least one biography mentions Ovid. I've seen it myself. When I was writing my book on Keats and Endymion, I came up with quite a bit of information on her use of the Endymion myth (in response to Keats's and Shelley's use). There should be information on Ovid in general, and what were here sources/books she read. Look up the four key names that I provided above and find out what you find. If you give me until Monday, I can go ahead and track down the information myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I am reticent to do much synthesis, as I know you are. Scholars who discuss the plays in detail have not felt it was relevant to explain how and when Mary Shelley learned Ovid (for whatever reason). They have felt that it was important to explain the differences between the two versions of the myth. If you can find anything connecting her study of particular versions of Ovid to the play, however, that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely done. I have a few minor suggestions.

  • A sentence in the lead says, "The genres of the text reflect a concern with gender issues as well." It's not clear to me from the rest of the text that the Shelleys themselves thought of the genres as gender-specific. Might it be better to say something like "The genres of the text reflect a division of labour along gender lines as well"? This is how you put it in the "Genre" section, and I like that better.
  • I dislike repeating lines exactly in the lead that are in the article and this sentence does not imply that the Shelleys thought anything in particular. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not a good idea to repeat the lines exactly, which is why I left some wiggle room with "something like". My concern is with the word "concern". The genres, being inanimate, have no concern. Perhaps "The genres of the text reflect gender differences as well."? Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem. My lit crit jargon is creeping in! Changed to "The genres of the text reflect gender debates of the time as well". Awadewit (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence of the lead is a bit awkward. It says, "Percy's contribution is in the traditionally male-dominated lyric verse form..." Maybe something like "Percy contributed in the lyric verse form traditionally dominated by men; Mary created drama with elements... " would work.
  • The sentence was originally written closer to this, but the GA reviewer suggested I change it. If you would like to change it to this version, please do so. I don't want to look churlish and change it back. I'm sure you understand. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the GA reviewer, but I thought his concern was that the original phrasing was perhaps too strongly combative. My concern is with the prose flow of the revised sentence. I'm not so much like Pluto that I'd insist on my wording. Perhaps User:Brianboulton, the reviewer, will come to the rescue here. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him to come have a look - maybe together we can come up with something spectacular. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here I am. The original form was: "Percy's contribution is in the traditionally male-dominated form of the lyric". I suggested that the last four words should be changed to "lyric form" or, better still, "lyric verse form". At this distance, and having got to understand the article rather better as a result of the review and the dialogue with Awadewit, I can't really see why I thought the original version "combative". There's little to choose between the various versions of the line on offer, but Finetooth's is probably the most elegant, and on those grounds I'd go with that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(additional comment): I see from note [1] that Proserpine may rhyme either with ween or wine. Has the four-syllable pronunciation which I learned at school (Pro-ser-pin-ee, accentuating second syllable) been utterly rejected? Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - forgot the two different syllable versions - added. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "Background" section says, "In March 1818 the Shelleys moved to Italy, where within a year their two young children, Clara and William, had both died." It might be better to delete "had both" since I think you mean that the children died after March 1818 and not on an earlier trip to Italy. Since you give the 1819 date in the next sentence, you might shorten the March 1818 sentence to say, "In March 1818 the Shelleys moved to Italy, where their two young children, Clara and William, soon died."
  • In the "Plot summary" section, it's unclear who Jove is speaking to until the "you" in the third line of the quote. Perhaps "Iris relates Jove's decision" would work better as "Iris relates Jove's decision about the fate of Proserpine".
  • Changed to "Iris relates Jove's decision regarding Proserpine's fate". Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page ranges in the "Notes" section need en dashes rather than hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - I asked Brighterorange to do the wrong article! He should be running his dash bot over this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep doing them by hand, which may be a little goofy. The dash bot sounds wonderful. Finetooth (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Took a look at a section by random, and the prose is really good (one minor change made). Just one issue; the last sentence ("However, in the last fifteen years or so, beginning with the publication of the The Other Mary Shelley in 1993, more attention has been paid to Mary Shelley's "other" works, such as her dramas.") could probably do with a source. Otherwise, looks good. —Giggy 11:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an introductory essay that explains the state of MS criticism at the time of the publication of the Other Mary Shelley and what its contributions are. Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with questions:
  • Can you include, for the literarily inept, brief descriptions of how Emile, La Nouvelle HéloÏse, and The History of Sandford and Merton are different to fit her characterization of widely read?
  • They are all different genres - that is one important fact which is included in the article. I'm beginning to think that this list is more trouble than it is worth. Would simply saying "educational works by Rousseau and Thomas Day's children's book The History of Sandford and Merton" be a better way of phrasing this? Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. It's not clear to the proverbial 12-year-old, just how different these works are, however. A few adjectives such as "...she read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophical treatise, Emile (1762) about people sustaining their innate goodness throughout a corrupt society, and his sentimental novel, La Nouvelle HéloÏse (1761), about the virtue of one's behaving authentically, as well as Thomas Day’s children’s book The History of Sandford and Merton (1783–89) that prioritizes honesty and hard work over decadence." But, you know...better... (In this context, it actually seems as if the themes of these works are similar, and that they lead in to the feminist spin on the story of Persephone.) --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a quotation from a scholar that helps explain these texts better and added a few from Mary Wollstonecraft. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be sufficient criticisms available in the article. It's mentioned in the lead that it has been neglected by critics, and again toward the end, yet there are quite a few comments by critics. How is that resolved?
  • Actually, this is very little criticism and the fact that I can include every critic who has written on the play in the article reveals just how little there is. There are hundreds of articles and books written on Frankenstein, for example, and much more has been written on each one of Mary Shelley's novels than on this play. There is only one Mary Shelley work that has less criticism - Maurice (not coincidentally another work of children's literature). Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it would help to compare the canon of criticism on Proserpine to Frankenstein, and Shelley's other or even Percy's works? --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared to Frankenstein and MS as wife of PBS. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a suggestion, merely a rambling: I watched a special the other day on how the Star Wars epic is so similar to Homer's Greek epics (debate on that later). Shelley apparently put a different spin on Proserpine, but the article got me wondering what a contemporary or futuristic retelling of Shelley's play might look like... When I take the information in the article and start making stuff up with it, that means I enjoyed it. Thanks for writing it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will it be all modern, or is that yet to be written by you someday? --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes - Major works not included in the research of this topic:

1. Clemit, Pamela (editor). The Novels and selected Works of Mary Shelley volume 2 (Matilda, Dramas, Reviews & Essays, Prefaces & Notes). London: William Pickering, 1996. This contains a 20 page entry (72-91) with a 7 page appendix section (412-418) of notes and variants. Throughout are notes detailing the background of images and symbols.

Some samples - p. 73 she identifies a reference to Ovid and to Purgatorio. p. 412 discusses variant editions
I used Shelley, Mary. Mary Shelley's Literary Lives and Other Writings. Vol. 4. Eds. Pamela Clemit and A. A. Markley. London: Pickering and Chatto. 2002. ISBN 1851967162, which had a good introduction to the play as well, since my library is missing volume two of NSWMS. I can request this volume from ILL if you think there is additional information that can be added to the article. Since you can see it, I would appreciate knowing if there are symbols discussed in it that are not discussed in the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Morrison, Lucy and Stone, Staci. A Mary Shelley Encyclopedia. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003.

Some samples - p. 299 on Myrrha by Alfieri - "Shelley records reading Alfieri September 1818 and that she 'translated Alfieri's Mirra,' which may have helped her write Proserpine and Midas (Journals 226; Sunstein 155), p. 316 "Shelley adapted Midas and Proserpine from Ovid", p. 352-3 Proserpine: Shelley records finishing this two-act verse drama, adapted from Ovid, 3 April 1820 (Journals 316). Shelley was initially unsuccessful in publishing her version of the myth of Proserpine's abduction. Influential editor Alaric Watts rejected the drama 1826, but Shelley placed an altered version in The Winter's Wreath (1832), attributed to "the Author of Frankenstein" (Sunstein 275). PBS contributed two lyrics to his wife's drama and Medwin records the couple's delight in the word (252). The drama's plot maintains most of the widely accepted aspects of Proserpine's myth. ... In view of the recent loss of two of her own children, Shelley's portrayal of the mother-daughter relationship may be autobiographical.".
With the exception of the Alfieri statement and autobiographical information, all of this information is in the article. The Alfieri statement, if you notice is a "may" statement, so including that is optional and certainly up to editorial judgment. What do you think about including it? The autobiographical strand of criticism is largely psychoanalytic and nearly impossible to explain to a general reader. If you would like me to try, I can try, but it would be better to base that on Purinton. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Sources used in the above are Sunstein, Emily W. Mary Shelley: romance and Reality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. and Medwin, Thomas. The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. New ed. Editor H Buxton Forman. London: Oxford University Press, 1913.

There are others, but I'd have to spend another day in the Library of Congress and dig deeper. I hope this shows that there is a lot more than you realize out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes part 2.

1. Mellor, Anne K. Mellor. "Review" Nineteenth-Century Literature, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Mar., 1989), pp. 535-537

Some sample - p. 536 "Betty Bennettt suggested in her edition of Mary Shelley's letters (, 142), moving up Mary Shelley's own dating of the first entry of the fifth journal notebook from 7 September 1826 to 1825, and persuasively identifing Mary's "Pxxxxxxxxxe" which she finished on 3 April 1820, as her own play, Proserpine, a Mythological Drama in two acts, published in 1832."
This is a review essay of the Letters and Journals of Mary Shelley. This three-page essay is not particularly relevant to a discussion of Proserpine and this particular detail would not help the general reader. The article gives the composition and publication history in a manner that the general reader will find helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Michelle Levy at Muse.

Some sample - "Shelley likewise, in her [End Page 702] verse dramas for children, Proserpine and Midas, written in 1820, eschews realistic narratives for classical mythology.32 And in their writing for older audiences, both Coleridge and Shelley return again and again to the unknown. "
I will have to access this article in printed form when I get home as my MUSE access seems to stop at 2002 for this journal. However, I note that the abstract focuses on Coleridge and Shelley. I'm not really sure what this quotation would add to the article. The major topics in this quotation relevant to Proserpine are already covered in the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got access to this article. It is about Frankenstein and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner". The only sentence which we could use in the article is this one, which is footnoted to another source, the Clemit. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Vance, Norman. "Heroic Myth and Women in Victorian Literature" The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 12, Heroes and the Heroic Special Number (1982), pp. 169-185

Discusses Proserpine in the context of Victorian lit from p. 175 onwards.
This would be excellent for the Persephone article, but we don't need to discuss Keats, Swinburne, and other Victorian versions of Proserpine/Persephone in this article. Where relevant, I have contrasted Mary Shelley's adaptation with others, detailing the differences, such as the feminism section. I feel that this is sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Raben, Joseph. "Milton's Influence on Shelley's Translation of Dante's 'Matilda Gathering Flowers'" The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 54 (May, 1963), pp. 142-156

Gives background on Percy Shelley and Proserpine/Midas. p. 153
Whether more information should be provided on Shelley's poem is a much larger question and I would like to hear from other editors on that point. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four more, with others that I haven't had time, nor time today, to look through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point to ask about these sources is whether they would add significant information to an article about the play for the general reader. Details about Mary Shelley's journals do not interest the general reader, for example. The question of how much Percy Shelley's poems should be covered in this article is a good one. I chose not to cover it much because scholars have divorced the discussion of the play from the poetry in most instances. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things - I think some background (in background or later) on PBS's poem would be interesting, since one can play off the other. Not much. I also think some more focused discussion on where in Ovid, instead of just generalizing, as the sources above seem to be more definitive about her pulling this from Ovid while her and PBS were looking into Ovid and other materials. (She also translated portions of the Cupid-Psyche myth from Apulieus, which might be nice to add to reinforce her understanding of Latin and her use of Latin mythological text). If you add even just a few more lines towards this direction and committ to looking further and willing to work for more information, then I will definitely be willing to support this article. I just don't want you to stop now that it would be an FA. This is an important subject area of mine, and this is your page, so I need to be sure that you will make it as good as possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An excellent, well-researched, and, considering this is a little studied work, remarkably full article. Well-written and structured. A pleasure to read.

A few points:

  • I found the bracketing of Greek names for certain characters disrupted reading ease—particularly In a largely feminist retelling from Ceres's (Greek: Demeter) point of view, Shelley emphasises .... And it's not consistent, because there isn't an alternative for Jove. This is better handled, I think, at the beginning of the "Themes" section, so perhaps it could be managed without parentheses early on too. Many readers will not know that a name like "Arethusa" is Greek anyway, so the logic of the parentheses will not necessarily be transparent.
  • I have deleted the double names from the lead and hopefully rewritten it in a slightly more elegant manner. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or two places where I sensed that the language was not entirely precise:

  • Shelley emphasises the separation of mother and daughter. Is "emphasises" the best word here?
Since other versions emphasize the rape and MS emphasizes the loss and grief experienced by the mother and daughter, I think it is, but if you have a better suggestion, I am all eyes. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary created a drama with elements common to early nineteenth-century women's writing: details of everyday life and empathetic dialogue. A little clumsy? Especially "common to".
  • This sentence has caused so many problems! I have rewritten it so many times I can't think anymore. Please take a whack at it because I just can't come up with another version right now. Perhaps in a week? I need some distance. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genres of the text also reflect gender debates of the time. Percy contributed in the lyric verse form traditionally dominated by men; Mary created a drama with elements common to early nineteenth-century women's writing ... If they reflect this debate, surely they should challenge tradition not conform to it?
  • Actually, they conform to this particular distinction. MS didn't challenge every gender stereotype. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary's drama consists of details, such as carefully-described flowers. A drama can't consist of details.
  • Changed to: Mary's drama consists of carefully-described objects, such as flowers. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary entered into a deep depression and became alienated from Percy, who was not as deeply affected by this loss. I don't think this is fair, Seymour (who may not grasp male psychology) notwithstanding. The reason I chose a certain verse of Percy's for Mary Shelley (including "But thou art fled, gone down a dreary road/That leads to Sorrow’s most obscure abode. For thine own sake I cannot follow thee") was because I felt it summed up his position in a complex way that allows for all readings. To put it simply, you can't both go to pieces.
  • Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that PBS didn't really seem to show much concern for most of his children. What would you suggest? Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fragment of the manuscript survives, housed in the Pforzheimer Collection at the New York Public Library, and demonstrates the couple working side-by-side on the project. How does it demonstrate this?
  • They are writing side-by-side on the same manuscript. They may be responding to each other (this was hinted at in the source). However, I haven't seen the manuscript, so I can't say for sure. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daughters of friends of the Shelleys in Italy, their mother was also a former pupil of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley's mother. I think an opportunity is missed here. It seems to me significant that Mary Wollstonecraft wrote stories for Mrs Mason when she was a girl, and perhaps that could be added.
  • I'm not remembering that, actually. Are you thinking of Original Stories from Real Life? That was based on Wollstonecraft's life with the King family but she wrote it after being a governess for them. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • shade of the underworld. A little obscure?
  • That is how he is described in the play. I think it is a technical mythological term. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • among with Ascalaphus. This seems like a typo, but it's in a quotation, so I kept my hands off.
  • The myth depicts the victory of male violence over female procreation. But does it? It seems like a draw to me. We still have spring and summer, after all.
  • This is the traditional interpretation of the myth. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theories about the rape are well covered, but should the obvious, that the rape might have been left out because it was a children's play, be overlooked? Bennett makes the point (An Introduction, p.61).
  • I hate to include something so obviously wrong. This is the only place where that claim is made (that I have found) and I have read other children's literature published around the same time with rapes in it. If Bennett thought MS specifically made this choice, that would be something different, but there is no evidence of that. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Proserpine’s abduction is prefigured in the story of Arethusa and, as literary scholar Julie Carlson points out, the women can only join together after Proserpine has been abducted. I miss the connection and point there.
  • Feminist critics argue that the play is about feminine bonding, but Carlson points out that the bonding only really takes place after masculine violence interrupts their gambols. How best to explain this? Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph beginning "In Shelley’s version of the myth", it seems to me that there are too many quotations, leading to a swamping of the encyclopedic tone.
  • I removed one. It is hard to paraphrase this style. Let me know if more have to go. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should have a date for Nitchie and give her credit for discovering the 1832 publication. She is referred to in the present tense and Rich in the past. I don't know when Norman was writing, but perhaps these three could be co-ordinated tense-wise, since they are all cited by other authors.
  • Do you think the Nitchie date is important for the general reader? I was going to put that at List of works by Mary Shelley, but if you think we won't bore people, let's add it here. I have fixed the "literary present". Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are interested in the following that I noticed while looking things up: Sunstein (p. 193) talks of Medwin observing Percy Shelley reading the piece and adding a word here and there (is this what the manuscript fragment shows?). The notes in The Journals of Mary Shelley (pp. 316–17) mention that Mary published Arethusa in Percy's Posthumous Poems, which may, they suggest, be why she left it out of the version published in The Winter's Wreath. Sunstein (p. 275) also says "Alaric Watts (apparently low on her list) solicited pieces for his Annual from her and "David Lyndsay" but declined her 1820 dramas 'Proserpine' and 'Midas'".

  • The Medwin material will help the manuscript description, yes. If you could add that, I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I wasn't sure about whether the general reader cared about the republication of Arethusa, but if you think we should include that, I can add it from my sources. Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Watts information can be added, I suppose. It is curious that the more recent articles on the play don't include that. Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Watts information. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is confusing. Purinton says that, according to her letters, Mary Shelley submitted Midas to Watts. She does not mention Proserpine. I am therefore taking Watts back out as the Purinton details seem convincing on this front. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Medwin information. Awadewit (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can dispel the "little studied" part now. I found four more books that discuss the matter on just a cursory search. There also appear to be a dozen or so others that look promising. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your researches are very helpful. But they show that the work has been often mentioned, not that it has been often studied. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely pointing out that there might be some hidden gems out there that may be ignored because we think it is complete. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be away for one or two days, but when I return I hope to have finished checking the sources Ottava Rima has provided and finished responding to all of the helpful suggestions here. Thanks all! Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. If you need any more, I have a list. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Proserpine_(play)&oldid=1138469409"