Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proserpine (play)

Proserpine (play)

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Proserpine (play)

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)

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

• 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)

• The topics are short because very little has been written on this play. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• "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)

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)

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)

The essay is partially available on Google Books here. Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Could you please suggest a better word? Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

I'm not sure what you mean by "earlier on" - where would this be better placed? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see education mentioned again in the article. Am I missing something?Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Comments on images:
  • Image:Proserpine-(utdrag).jpg - needs a verifiable source (it sources to the image from which it was derived, which does not have source information)
    • I have fixed the original image. (The link to the Tate should be working, but if it isn't, let me know.)Awadewit (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, not working for me? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 07:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I added an alternate source. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 08:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:L'enlèvement de Proserpine Nancy 3018.jpg - source needed for the author/date of the painting itself
    • I have found an article attributing a rape of Persephone to Simone Pignoni, but no date as of yet. This may have to wait until I return home and have access to the stacks of a fine arts library. Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Sourced attribution to Simone Pignoni would be good enough, as we're just looking to corroborate the PD claim. Simone's article sets forth a date of death that does just that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 07:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Source added to prove PD claim. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Portrait of Percy Bysshe Shelley by Curran, 1819.jpg - source does not support the details (no mention of Curran or 1819 date) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Good enough for Mary Shelley but not this, eh? :) Added citation to Seymour biography (available on Google Books). Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • We all miss things from time to time; you should know I'm a nitwit by now. ;P ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 07:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(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)

Oops - forgot the two different syllable versions - added. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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."

• Changed. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• The page ranges in the "Notes" section need en dashes rather than hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)