Talk:Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA

Very well written effort. Would have a very good chance at FAC I suspect. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Awadewit | talk 06:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion: it might look better if you use the Citation templates to reference your sources. Kweeket 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any aesthetic difference between my MLA citation style and wikipedia's random citation style. Besides, those templates are impossible to use - they do not contain enough fields and often have to be tweaked to accommodate editors, etc. Awadewit | talk 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FA

Why doesn't this article have the little Featured Article star icon thingie at the top of the article? dfg 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments and musings

Congratulations on the FAC. I was too slow off the mark to get a review in, so I'm putting my thoughts here anyway (needless to say, I would have supported). Please regard the following partly as musings and ignore anything useless. I've had a very bitty few days, but when I could, I've had fun reading the article and dipping into the book. It's revealing reading about Wollstonecraft's mature opinions, after the articles about the early works: more than any other, this article brought home to me how ahead of her time she was.

• From the plot summary, I can’t think which parts of the novel imply “empowering female sexuality”, “using the sexualised female body as a medium of communication” or “women could be fully sexualised beings”. I wonder if the relevant parts of the story could be made clear.

• I think it's supposed to mean that Maria accepts her lustful feelings for Darnford. She revels in them (the comparison to Rousseau's Julie is supposed to make this clear.) I'm not sure that anything in the plot is what prompts this interpretation - I think it is the language Wollstonecraft uses and the allusions to Rousseau. (However, not everyone agrees on this, of course.) How can I make this clearer? Awadewit | talk 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"accepts her lustful feelings for Darnford" is good plain English; perhaps it could be shown that that's the bit these points refer to.qp10qp 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• See new passage. Perhaps it is not as specific as you might like, yet? Awadewit | talk 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• On a connected note, I find the word “sexualised” ambiguous, because it could be argued that Venables and Jemima’s abusers sexualised women (the word is often used with a negative edge). I wonder if it has a specialised meaning in feminist literary contexts.

• I agree that the word can be used both ways; the phrasings surrounding it ("fully sexualized" and "relishes") are supposed to lend it that positive quality. (The whole book is ambiguous, by the way. I found this the hardest article to write of all the MW pages - critics disagree all over the place. It is an unfinished manuscript, after all.) Awadewit | talk 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.qp10qp 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pseudo-autobiography. This isn’t for me a self-explanatory term: I’m not sure if it means a fictionalised autobiography (like, say The Bell Jar), a fictional autobiography (like Robinson Crusoe), or simply a story told through the autobiographical narratives of the characters. The last seems to me the closest. Although the article notes some autobiographical elements, such as the names and Maria’s thought-processes after the suicide attempt, most of the book is surely too sensational to be (pseudo-)autobiographical.

• The word was meant to convey the idea that parts of the narrative reflect Wollstonecraft's own life. I have changed it to the more familiar "autobiographical." No need to introduce too many strange terms in the lead. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simpler.qp10qp 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The plot summary says that “Venables sells Maria to one of his friends”, and later the article says “By making both Jemima and Maria prostitutes, Wollstonecraft...”. But the article also says, “her new husband attempts to sell her into prostitution”. Obviously, I haven’t read the novel, so I can’t be sure, but I’ve checked the text, and I suspect that only the third of these wordings is correct. It seems to me that Venables tries to sell Maria to his friend, but then she objects and runs away. Though Venables catches up with her, I didn’t notice that he succeeded in making her a prostitute. I may have missed something.

• No, you're not missing anything. It's just that scholars elide over that minor point of fact that Maria never actually becomes a prostitute like Jemima (they're literary scholars, after all). It's the impression of prostitution that is more important in their analysis - several writers describe both of them as prostitutes. I don't know what else to do. :( Awadewit | talk 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the book itself is the source for the plot summary, you could change it to "tries to sell". "By making..." could be easily tweaked, too. Such small changes, legitimately based on the book, would not alter the overall analysis of the scholars.qp10qp 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I should just read the book again - I think money but not sex may have exchanged hands. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• in medias res: I wonder if this might be better cut. I fear most people won’t understand it, though, of course, it’s the precise literary term. The sentence would still work without it.

• This is a crucial feature of the narrative's structure. Best to leave it in, I think. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Darnford reveals that he was a debauched youth; he woke up in the asylum after a night of heavy drinking and now cannot convince the doctors to release him. The tense confused me here; I wasn’t sure whether this happened to Darnford recently or a long time ago. Is he still a youth? How long has he been in there? (Tenses must have been a nightmare in this plot summary, since the novel overlays timescales.)

• The tenses were horrific. I don't think I have them right yet. How about this: "Darnford reveals that he has had a debauched life; waking up in the asylum after a night of heavy drinking, he has been unable to convince the doctors to release him." (It's all very recent.) Awadewit | talk 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That would solve it, I think.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maria's refusal to leave the madhouse, when she is free to do so. I wonder if this plot point might be added to the plot summary, since it is the first we hear of it. It sounds like a crucial moment.

• Honestly, I'm not totally sure what that person is talking about. I think they are referring to a scene in the fragmentary ending, but I'm not positive. Awadewit | talk 07:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think it needs to be looked at. Otherwise, the reader may assume they have missed something crucial. A moment like that would be considered a crucial turning point in many novels. If it was only one of the possibilities considered by Wollstonecraft in her fragments, I think that is best mentioned.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable adding something I am so unsure about. Let me reread the novel and I'll try to identify the passage more securely. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• relies on gothic conventions such as the literal and figurative "mansion of despair" to which Maria is consigned. But it does so to demonstrate that gothic horrors are a reality for the average Englishwoman. Using elements of the gothic, Wollstonecraft can, for example, easily portray Maria's husband as tyrannical and married life as wretched.[8] As Wollstonecraft herself writes in the "Preface" to The Wrongs of Woman:

"In many instances I could have made the incidents more dramatic, would I have sacrificed my main object, the desire of exhibiting the misery and oppression, peculiar to women, that arise out of the partial laws and customs of society."[9]

I find the first part of that weakly argued. Of course, it will have come from a source; but does it add to or obfuscate Wollstonecraft’s statement, which partly contradicts it (in order to make the oppression clearer, she has avoided going the whole gothic hog)? I suspect Wollstonecraft used gothic conventions because she was writing in the gothic genre; but, then, I'm no literary critic (no chance, with that level of analysis).

• You've gotten it exactly right: she uses the gothic to demonstrate how horrific real life is for Englishwomen but she also refuses to "go the whole gothic hog" in order to avoid melodrama (whether or not she was successful is another question). How can I convey this more clearly? Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the second sentence in the above is the one to look at; in view of Wollstonecraft's comment, it seems to me overemphatic in the context.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have removed "easily". Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I find “Composition, publication, and plot summary” a rather heavy-handed heading, though I can’t think of anything better. I notice that there’s hardly anything about publication in the section.

• Now "Composition and plot summary". I didn't want to use "Drafts and plot summary" as I use the word for the subheading. Perhaps inspiration will strike in the future. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Headings can be really difficult at times. The Wikipedia system of layered headings sometimes seems to require headings for the sake of it.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I’m not sure why the point about names follows and is made exemplary of the issues about sensibility. It felt as if it intruded there and narrowed the focus of a strongly argued passage.

• I deleted that material - see new version. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That strengthens the passage, I think.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Henry Darnford's name resembles that of Henry Darnley, the lover of the doomed Mary, Queen of Scots. Well (rolls up sleeves) how female-POV and gothic of you to call Mary "doomed", when poor old Darnley died in 1567 and she in 1587, after living a life of leisure in a castle. (How did poor old Darnley die? Blown up in an explosion (and finished off half way across the lawn in his nightshirt) by Mary’s future husband and his chums (now, that's what I call doomed). Also, Darnley (Mary's husband) was never her lover: it was a political marriage, and though there’s one initially favourable comment by Mary about him (along the lines of “lustiest man I ever saw”) on record, almost all the other evidence shows that she couldn’t stand him. (Sorry, the history nerd in me came out there.)

• I'm looking at my source now. Apparently that Wollstonecraft scholar didn't know his history that well - he describes Darnley as the cause of Mary's downfall. I don't know what to do now. Just not describe her? :) Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, her downfall came in stages, and he was certainly the cause of the start of it because after she married him, he threw his weight around in Scotland, upset the nobles, and they murdered him. After that, she was no longer really in control of the country. (There are various opinions as to whether Mary was behind the murder, but I'm in the "Mary was innocent" school.) Darnley could simply be called "husband"; it gets to sound a bit less gothic then, though, and the comparison with Darnford, who is a lover, starts to break down.qp10qp 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what should we say? Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would cut "doomed" and change "lover" to "husband"; but only you can judge, by assessing the scholar's point, whether it would remain worth repeating in that case.qp10qp 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have cut the analytical details. Readers can click and figure it out for themselves. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wollstonecraft added to the reality of her philosophical text by quoting from familiar literature, such as Shakespeare. How does quoting from Shakespeare add to the reality?

• I would guess that since Shakespeare was starting to seem ubiquitous and since those quotations were from the "real world" they would have added authenticity to the text, but the source does not elaborate on that point exactly. That is my speculation. What he Kelly (you really have problems with Kelly!) does elaborate on is that MW tends to quote from plays that Sarah Siddons starred in - connecting the quotations to a famous female actress of the day, but I did not go into that level of detail. It seemed a bit far afield for a section on the Jacobin novel. Let me know if I should add it. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• the possibility of a feminism that crosses class boundaries. When class issues were introduced, I had to scan back up the page to see what I had missed. Might it be worth making Maria’s class very clear at the beginning of the plot summary?

• Her dowry didn't give it away? Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Me being dim. Mind you, I wasn't clear about Jemima's class, either. I read it as first that she slipped from a precarious social position. We aren't told what class her mother was, and I failed to assume that she was low class (impoverished, yes); since Jemima's father kept servants, I read her to begin with as a sort of Heathcliffean class hybrid. Also, in the book, as far as I could see, Wollstonecraft doesn't give her any class markers (dialect, etc.) of the sort Defoe, for example, did with some of his his low class women. I do think the reader of the article needs an earlier signal that the relationship between the women notably crosses class boundaries, because later this turns out to be significant.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeled as "upper" and "lower". (That Jemima was an apprentice means she was lower class - also prostitutes are never upper-class.) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• In a metaphor carried over from the "Rights of Woman", Wollstonecraft repeatedly describes marriage as a prison and women as slaves within it. Is that not two metaphors?

• Fixed. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The "Rights of Woman" portrays sexuality as an unsuitable form of masculinity. I blew a raspberry when I read this. I don’t care what critic said it, (draws oneself up) I hereby declare it tosh. Surely there’s a better way of summarising what the Rights says about sexuality (I've just had a glance at your article on it but can't see this mentioned, at least in these terms). I feel the whole sentence sets up a false and partly incomprehensible contrast.

• Ah. This is correct and is argued by one of the most prominent Wollstonecraft scholars (Claudia L. Johnson (scholar). It is not prominently featured in the Rights of Woman article because that is one of the earliest articles I wrote for wikipedia and I was still learning how to write them (you can tell from the notes I didn't know how - all of those primary sources!). I tended to shy away from controversial theories that would be difficult to explain such as this one. Now I am more confident (that is why I am going to revise Rights of Woman before the featured topic nomination). MW had very odd things to say about sexuality - seemingly a love/hate relationship with it of sorts. By the way, I don't know what it means to blow a raspberry, but it doesn't sound particularly pleasant. :) I will work on explaining this more. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the point itself is incorrect (I've no idea), just that it is expressed, well, ludicrously, in my opinion (I don't blame you; it's those infernal critics): "sexuality as an unsuitable form of masculinity" makes no sort of sense, surely. Sexuality is by definition not a form of masculinity, suitable or otherwise. Masculinity, if one strains for some logic in this, might be a form of sexuality; never the other way round, it seems to me. It sounds like a line out of Annie Hall.

I didn't realise Blowing a raspberry was rightpondian. It's not totally unpleasant, I'd say: it's my main technique for communicating with babies and always goes down a treat in that quarter. (I lose them around the age of three when I switch to talking about medieval history.) qp10qp 00:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This one will take me a few days to sort out. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't get a headache.qp10qp 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of the new version. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maria's role as mother allows her to instruct herself, thereby creating her own sense of self; in advising her daughter through the manuscript she is writing, Maria learns about herself and realizes her past errors. I suspect this sentence repeats the same point twice.

• There is more information the second time - the bit about the manuscript and the past errors - can you fit all of that into one clause? I couldn't. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is not all the information contained in the second clause: "In advising her daughter through the manuscript she is writing, Maria learns about herself and realizes her past errors"?qp10qp 18:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't contain "creating her own sense of self". Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning any other posthumous works published with Maria?

• The list is on the Mary Wollstonecraft page. Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, they don't sound worth it. I see this at Mary Wollstonecraft; I'm slightly surprised not to find it here: "The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria. Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Ed. William Godwin. London: Joseph Johnson, 1798. [Published posthumously; unfinished]." Are you worried people might jump on that to challenge the article's title?

They can jump all they want; they will be jumping around in circles. There is absolutely no consistency in the way this book is cited. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on another fine article. (And, yes, you guessed it, this is all just a ploy to lure away from arguing with that Paine blokey.)qp10qp 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• It worked. :) Awadewit | talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've enjoyed reading about Wollstonecraft. Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark is another interesting, mature work. Most scholars lament that she never had a chance to finish Maria - kinda like Mozart - if only. Awadewit | talk 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read half of it last night. Great stuff (what a shame we don't know what happened about the boat). It sounds like the basis for a great novel (I daresay that's already been done).

• If it has, I don't know about it. Perhaps some day there will be a "Wollstoncraftite" industry that will take it up like there is a "Janeite" industry for Jane Austen. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We could put Gary Kelly in charge of it. qp10qp 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a good thing she didn't finish it, though. She would have had to choose one of those endings, and the ambiguities and complexities (awkward though they are for a Wikipedia article writer!) would have been reduced.qp10qp 18:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• How postmodern of you. :) Awadewit | talk 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. But I've read The French Lieutenant's Woman. qp10qp 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• (By the way I rewrote some sections of Thoughts on the Education of Daughters as you suggested. Whenever you have a moment in the next few weeks, perhaps you could review those. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Page name

What do people think about renaming this page The Wrongs of Woman. I find the punctuation annoying and the book is most often referred to by that shortened name. It is not even clear whether the proper title is Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman or The Wrongs of Woman; or, Maria. I saw both while doing my research. Awadewit | talk 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that difference struck me, too. I prefer it this way, I think, because it sounds like the title of a work of fiction, whereas the shortened title sounds more non-fictionish to me, suggesting something in the vein of Rights of Woman/Men.qp10qp 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking about renaming to reinforce the connection to the Rights of Woman so obvious in the title. Ah well. Too much trouble, really. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)