{"id":2611,"date":"2019-09-24T23:10:11","date_gmt":"2019-09-24T23:10:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/?p=2611"},"modified":"2019-09-24T23:10:11","modified_gmt":"2019-09-24T23:10:11","slug":"five-questions-anna-mercer-on-the-shelleys-collaborative-literary-relationship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/?p=2611","title":{"rendered":"Five Questions: Anna Mercer on the Shelleys’ Collaborative Literary Relationship"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Anna Mercer is a\u00a0Lecturer in the School of English, Communication and Philosophy at Cardiff University<\/a>.\u00a0 She is particularly interested in the dynamics of literary relationships, the works and experiences of women writers and the possibilities unlocked by manuscript studies, and has published a number of articles on these topics.\u00a0\u00a0She organised the Shelley Conference in 2017, works closely with Keats House and the Keats-Shelley Association of America, has served on the BARS Executive<\/a> as Blog Editor and was recently elected to the new role of BARS Communications Officer.\u00a0 Her first book,\u00a0The Collaborative Literary Relationship of Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley<\/em><\/a>, which we discuss below, was recently published by Routledge.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1) How did you come to realise that you wanted to write a book on the collaborative relationship between the Shelleys?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My first engagement with the Shelleys was when I had the opportunity to study Frankenstein <\/em>and A Defence of Poetry <\/em>as an undergraduate \u2013 which is surely a very common way to initially encounter these two writers.\u00a0 A section of research that features in my book probably appeared in some form in a second-year undergraduate essay on Romanticism (well, according to memory it does, although I wouldn\u2019t like to seek it out and read it again!).\u00a0 I had spent time examining the unity between the language of the Shelleys\u2019 letters and their journal entries during the Alpine travels of 1816, and then compared it to what appeared in the printed 1818 version of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley\u2019s (MWS\u2019s) Frankenstein<\/em>.\u00a0 Even as an undergrad it was something that \u2013 as I explain in the introduction to my book \u2013 I did feel really drawn to, like this way of reading was leading somewhere interesting if only I had the time, credibility and determination to explore such a line of enquiry further.\u00a0 I expected to find a book that already existed about the Shelleys\u2019 broader collaborations beyond Frankenstein<\/em>, but didn\u2019t find a full-length study focusing solely on that.\u00a0 I did of course find some amazing, inspiring work by scholars looking at aspects of the Shelleys\u2019 relationship, including perhaps most significantly Charles E. Robinson\u2019s excellent research on the Frankenstein<\/em> manuscripts (in which he suggested someone should undertake a further major study of the Shelleys\u2019 collaboration).\u00a0 Other critics that had spent time identifying the Shelleys\u2019 close working practices that influenced me (I can\u2019t mention them all here) included Nora Crook, Michael O\u2019Neill and Donald H. Reiman.\u00a0 I went on to study the Shelleys for my MPhil dissertation and then was lucky enough to be funded by the AHRC to complete a PhD at the University of York on the Shelleys.\u00a0 In early 2018 I was delighted to be offered a contract with Routledge to edit what was my original thesis into a monograph.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2) Where did you find evidence of the Shelleys’ collaborative ethos?\u00a0 To what extent do you think that the surviving record allows for a full picture?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As I explain in the book, I found evidence of the Shelleys\u2019 collaborative ethos primarily in manuscript facsimile editions of the Shelleys\u2019 shared notebooks.\u00a0 These were invaluable to me as I explored The Bodleian Shelley Manuscripts <\/em>and The Manuscripts of the Younger Romantics <\/em>in great detail.\u00a0 In these wonderful publications you can find undeniable pen-on-paper evidence of the Shelleys\u2019 collective working (whether \u2018collective\u2019 is the same as \u2018collaborative\u2019 is one of the key things I discuss in the book!).\u00a0 MWS\u2019s involvement in the drafting and copying stages of The Mask of Anarchy, <\/em>for example, cannot be denied when we look to the manuscripts.\u00a0 And there are many instances of collective working beyond the famous interventions by Percy Bysshe Shelley (PBS) on the draft of Frankenstein.<\/em>\u00a0 It\u2019s important to emphasise, though, that as much as looking at the facsimiles of the holograph drafts (and on occasion, the original documents themselves) was important, it was crucially the editorial work of several hugely influential scholars that supported my research.\u00a0 Their work framed these notebooks and brought the scribbles to life through explaining the relevant context(s) and providing detailed transcriptions as well as nuanced interpretations.\u00a0 Without these editions I don\u2019t think my project would have been possible.\u00a0 Manuscript evidence coupled with the knowledge that we have of the Shelleys\u2019 day-to-day activities (thanks mainly to MWS for recording them and including reading lists!) just substantiates the connections between the two authors\u2019 works.\u00a0\u00a0The Cenci<\/em> and Mathilda<\/em> are sister-works by theme; but what is also relevant is that we can identify the crossover points at which PBS and MWS were working on these individual projects.\u00a0 For example, we know MWS was beginning to write Mathilda <\/em>just as PBS was completing The Cenci<\/em> in August 1819.\u00a0 As for a full picture, I\u2019m not sure.\u00a0 Obviously so much is missing with regards to what has and hasn\u2019t survived, and we can never truly \u2018know\u2019 anything about the way PBS and MWS thought, studied, and composed.\u00a0 My book seeks to cover a broad period, using a chronological method to trace the ebbs and flows in their relationship, but both of the Shelleys were so prolific it is very fair to say I have only covered a series of case studies and there is so much more work to be done.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3)<\/u>\u00a0How would you characterise the collaboration between the Shelleys?\u00a0 Did each fulfil particular defined roles for the other, or were their interactions more fluid and specific?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think the range of ways in which the Shelleys collaborated is very important.\u00a0 What I haven\u2019t already mentioned about my inspiration for the study is the divisions evident in Shelley criticism that saw the couple separated in popular culture and, to some extent, in scholarly observations.\u00a0 In some (often influential!) pockets of criticism, Shelleyans were divided into two very distinct \u2018camps\u2019.\u00a0 Some who worked on PBS saw MWS as inferior in intellect and style in the first instance, and then a corrupt editor of his posthumous publications in the second, and perhaps worst of all: they considered that she didn\u2019t even have the capacity to understand him.\u00a0 But it was not just this troublesome group of Percy Shelleyans that were the problem.\u00a0 Some of the people who worked on Mary Shelley thought that the only way she could be brought back from obscurity would be to denounce him \u2013 blame him for overshadowing her, and then even attack the way he collaborated on Frankenstein<\/em> as an act of patriarchy.\u00a0 I get very frustrated at the whole idea that PBS and MWS didn\u2019t like each other or one another\u2019s work.\u00a0 Obviously, they had some relationship difficulties (unsurprising for most people, and expected for a couple like the Shelleys given the tragedies that befell them).\u00a0 But I think this polarisation \u2013 the unhelpful separation of two authors who lived and worked together from 1814 to 1822 and who were also in love \u2013 seems a huge shame, especially when Romantic studies and studies of English literature of have of late been far more successfully focused on the idea of social creativity, rejecting the idea of the solitary genius.\u00a0 I will note again here that the gradual force of change has been led by critics such as Robinson from the mid-twentieth century onwards, and again I am indebted to all of their work.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4) How do you think Romantic Studies might benefit from (re)examining collaborations in the period more widely?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think Romantic Studies is generally excellent at emphasising the social nature of creativity and I am thrilled to be part of an area of research that is constantly growing and exciting new audiences.\u00a0 Having said that, the Shelleys can be overlooked in terms of collaboration even now.\u00a0 I think the Shelleys are one of the greatest of the so-called \u2018Romantic collaborations\u2019, alongside Wordsworth and Coleridge for example, and it would be a shame if we were to overlook them because of their shared critical history (which has been turbulent to say the least) and their difficult, frustrating representations in popular culture (see the latest film on Mary Shelley starring Elle Fanning).\u00a0 I enjoy introducing the idea of literary collaboration to my students at Cardiff University and also in the work I do in communications and at Keats House Museum: I think the idea of poets and novelists conversing, sharing their inspirations, and working together on iconic literary texts can be a way of appealing to people who might be less familiar with the Romantics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

5) What new projects are you currently working on?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve said a lot about my love for manuscript studies already \u2013 and so I\u2019m thrilled to say I\u2019m currently working on transcribing and editing the only manuscript book containing PBS\u2019s hand that has not been published as a facsimile edition.\u00a0 The book is MSS 13,290 in the Library of Congress.\u00a0 For a taster, here\u2019s a short blog post about one of the pages in the notebook via European Romanticisms in Association<\/a>.\u00a0 This project in itself is a collaboration!\u00a0 I\u2019m working with Professor Nora Crook and Dr Bysshe Coffey.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, as well as teaching at Cardiff, I continue to work with Keats House Museum on their #Keats200 project(s) and also with the Keats-Shelley Association of America and BARS to promote new activities in Romantic Studies.\u00a0 I will be organising a conference for the bicentenary of PBS\u2019s death on 8 July 2020, along with Sharon Ruston, Bysshe Coffey, Amanda Blake Davis, and others.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anna Mercer is a\u00a0Lecturer in the School of English, Communication and Philosophy at Cardiff University.\u00a0 She is particularly interested in the dynamics of literary relationships, the works and experiences of… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2611"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2611"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2617,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2611\/revisions\/2617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bars.ac.uk\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}