Mary: Una ficció

by Mary Wollstonecraft, Esther Tallada Seco (translator)

«—¡Treballaré! —es va exclamar—. Faré el que calgui abans que viure com una esclava.»

La Mary ha crescut a l’Anglaterra del segle XVIII, a l’ombra dels seus germans, ignorada per la família fins que mor la mare i el pare l’obliga a casar-se amb un home que no estima. I malgrat tot, ella ha aconseguit fer-se un caràcter amable i solidari, sempre disposada a ajudar a qui més ho necessita.

Com l’Ann, una amiga sense possibles i de salut fràgil. Quan el marit de la Mary marxa a París per negocis, elles dues ho aprofiten per viatjar a Lisboa. Confien que el canvi d’aires els anirà bé. S’instal·len en un sanatori luxós, on coneixen en Henry. Però l’Ann empitjora i mor, així que la Mary decideix tornar a Londres per donar la notícia a la mare de la finada i es queda amb ella per ajudar-la. Al cap d’un temps torna en Henry. I el marit…

Escrita abans que la Vindicació dels drets de la dona, aquesta novel·la de finals tràgics rebutja els models femenins que la societat ofereix. Wollstonecraft va eixamplar els anhels de llibertat de la Revolució Francesa també per a les dones i ens va explicar la sororitat abans que aquesta tingués nom, la Mary és una heroïna apassionada que precedeix la Jane Eyre. Llegim-les i reivindiquem-les, perquè la societat que deixa de lluitar pels seus drets està condemnada a perdre’ls.

Genres: Classics, Fiction, Feminism, 18th Century, British Literature, School, Womens

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1788

About the author

Mary Wollstonecraft was an eighteenth century British writer, philosopher, and feminist. Among the general public and specifically among feminists, Wollstonecraft's life has received much more attention than her writing because of her unconventional, and often tumultuous, personal relationships. After two ill-fated affairs, with Henry Fuseli and Gilbert Imlay, Wollstonecraft married the philosopher William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement; they had one daughter, Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein. Wollstonecraft died at the age of thirty-eight due to complications from childbirth, leaving behind several unfinished manuscripts.

During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason.


After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing her unorthodox lifestyle, which inadvertently destroyed her reputation for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly important. Today Wollstonecraft is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers, and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences.

Information courtesy of Wikipedia.org

Reviews

[Amy H. Sturgis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fascinating story if you read it from the perspective of intellectual history, in the context of its times and as a reflection of Mary Wollstonecraft's evolving ideas. Inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's conviction that geniuses are self-taught, but in defiance of his poorly-drawn, two-dimensional woman characters, the story presents a self-taught female genius, Mary. The heroine's tragic plight -- by the end, the anticipation of dying young almost seems like a happy ending -- proves how women under both the British system of law and cultural norms of the time were shackled rather than enriched by marriage.

Much of Wollstonecraft's own experiences and acquaintances make their way into this tale. Because she's using the trappings of "sentimental literature" to criticize sentimentalism and the "cult of sensibility" (which she believed damaged women by elevating emotion over reason), her work falls into some of the same problems as the very genre she's attacking. This can make for a difficult read for contemporary audiences, what with the fainting and the weeping and such. But in a way, that's part of the point.

Wollstonecraft herself later said this novel was laughable. It isn't, though. It's a deeply humane character study and a bold interrogation of notions of masculinity, femininity, and "proper" relationships. Most importantly, it anticipates some of Wollstonecraft's signature and revolutionary themes, such as the "slavery of marriage" and the lack of suitable occupations and professional opportunities for women. It's well worth reading for a window into Wollstonecraft's subversive and remarkable mind.

[Izzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I notice a lot of the negative reviews of this novel focus on Mary as a character, her self-absorption and 'obsession with herself' - I can't help but disagree. Mary is a fundamentally selfless character, consistently (naively) hopeful that others will behave as well to her as she does to them. That Mary Wollstonecraft has constructed the character around herself is not inherently negative. How many men, particularly in the 18th Century, write characters where they obsessively consider their own virtues, and those of other men around them. If the author and protagonist were not women I think this book would be held in much higher regard. The novel is, in essence, a deep character study, and simply because the character in question is a woman confident of her own intellect, reason, passion and goodness, does not negate the successes of the narrative. Mary's story is one of profound tragedy, heightened by the circumstances her gender relegates her into, which only adds to the irony of so much reader dismissal on account of her personality. A male character, becoming romantically interested in Mary, is surprised by her: 'In Mary's company he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine, and almost forgot that he had called the sex "the pretty play things that render life intolerable". This quote alone indicates the importance of Mary's self-insertion of her own experiences; many men at the time simply did not consider women to be anything more than sexual objects, incapable of rational thought or intellect. 'Mary: A Fiction' is a celebration of the rich internal life of an intelligent, unfortunate young woman of the time.

[Marta Cava]

Mary Wollstonecraft quedes apuntada a la meva llista de senyores desquiciades que hem patit per amor

[Charlene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very hard to know how to rate this in 2021. Wollstonecraft is simply brilliant and far ahead of her time. I can't imagine giving this, or any of her works, fewer than 5 stars. I found this challenging to get through, because the writing was definitely tailor made for folks in the 1700s. For me, it was not as pleasurable or effortless as it was reading Margaret Cavendish's Blazing World from the 1600s. That was far more digestible and easy to get lost in the pages that were so filled with imagery and wild ideas. Cavendish's novel was a wild and strange sort of biography with lots of metaphor dressed up as fiction. Wollstonecraft's fictionalized version of her life was not as much fictionalized as it was an illustration of her previous, and immensely important work, Vindication of the Rights of Women. It was meant to make that work more digestible, and indeed she succeeded in that regard. It deserves 5 stars for its sheer championing of women in a time when that was an extremely isolating and difficult task.

[belisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

klasik bir roman gibi düşünmemek lazım, dönemin ölçülerine ve beklentilerine uyarak ilginç bir kadın portresi sunulmuş, Lou Salome'nin iki romanında da aynı şey vardı, yazar daha özgür düşünceli, zihni açık bir kadının var olabileceğini ispatlamak, böyle bir kadının ruhundan, davranışlarından ve kişiliğinden bahsetmek istiyor sanki...

[Pink · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've come to the conclusion that I love what Mary Wollstonecraft has to say. Her writing, not so much.

[eleanor · Rating 4 out of 5]

mary🤩the emotions🥺the imagery🤩the sublime🥺

[António Cebola · Rating 4 out of 5]

[this review is a mess. i could write a thesis about this]

this woman had balls. if instead of Mary the main character was named James and if instead of dealing with the female experience it dealt with the male experience, this novel would be celebrated and applauded. but unfortunately it is not. yes sure it’s not perfect – sometimes (as i believe it tends to happen with Wollstonecraft) her way of criticizing her social and intellectual surroundings by exaggeratedly emulating them is flawed – but nothing is perfect!!
it was mid-18th century and this WOMAN was screaming that marriage was a type of slavery for women!!!!
ah and those who think the main character, Mary, is too much like the author, Mary Wollstonecraft, should re-read the book! bestie is telling her tragic life story and showing us how selfless she was BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ROLE SOCIETY WANTED HER TO PLAY AND EVEN THOUGH SHE TRIED TO RUN AWAY FROM IT SHE COULDN’T BECAUSE IT IS OKAY TO BE SELFLESS AND CARING AS WELL AS INTELLIGENT AND “WOKE”

“she looked for hope; but found none”

[Caelan♡ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think a lot of the ideas went over my head. Wollstonecraft responds to a lot of contextual theological, philosophical, and psychological ideas which I’m totally unfamiliar with. Solid story though.

[Paula · Rating 2 out of 5]

nicht schrecklich aber tbh she should've sticked to non-fiction

[Lee Foust · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I have to admit that Mary pretty much fails as a novel--it's too straightforwardly didactic and expositional, without any of the description, scenes, or dialogue to really draw a reader into the artificial reality of the world in which the tale takes place--it rather worked for me as a portrait of a frustrated mind unable, because of the social norms of the time, to procure an education and altogether too sensible (that is empathic and sensitive to suffering and injustice) to suffer a social world of boorish, materialist louts that is not at all confined to 17th century Britan. In that I took joy, feeling as I do about those topics. However the heroine's consolation in Christianity, with its incessant focus on stoic passivity and melancholic yearning for death, is just depressing and I see as the Occidental world's strongest hobbling factor--such thinking and the incessant surrender that it produces has held us back from revolution and all kinds of melioration for far too long. It even threatens to drag us back into a mire of superstition and barbarity today, particularly in the U.S.A. So there the book lost me. I rather liked the somewhat stilted but interesting diction as well. I found it rather elegant without being too difficult to parse.

[Anne Bils (thebeautyofthebooks) · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the first glance this seems to be a very shallow novel without a deep plot or realistic characters. But the book is not about the plot rather than the emotions conveyed in it. Also the authors use of quotes from other texts and how she manages to embed then in her story really fascinated me. A good, short read that portrays very well that Wollstonecraft knew what she was doing as an author.

[Hades Martín · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly quite forgettable...

[Sotiris Karaiskos · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author has particularly disliked novels because she believed they had a devastating effect on the women who read them, making them even more submissive to men. This book was written in response to the sentimental novels that were particularly popular then, as a model of how novels should be realistic and useful in women's development. The result is an interesting different approach to literature, with the story of a woman who differs from all the others as she grows up reading the right books and thus gains a dynamic and independent character, but this independence is not complete due to the non- systematic education. In other words, the author creates a story to express her views. The problem, however, is that the writer is trying harder to prove a point than to write literature, so the book suffers from a lack of emotion, direction and ideas and seems to be incomplete.

Η συγγραφέας αντιπαθούσε ιδιαίτερα τα μυθιστορήματα γιατί πίστευε ότι είχαν καταστροφική επίδραση στις γυναίκες που τα διάβαζαν, κάνοντάς τες ακόμα περισσότερο υποταγμένες στους άνδρες. Αυτό το βιβλίο το έγραψε ως αντίδραση στα συναισθηματικά μυθιστορήματα που ήταν ιδιαίτερα δημοφιλή τότε, ως ένα υπόδειγμα του πως θα έπρεπε να είναι τα μυθιστορήματά ώστε να είναι ρεαλιστικά και χρήσιμα στην ανάπτυξη των γυναικών. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μία ενδιαφέρουσα διαφορετική προσέγγιση στη λογοτεχνία, με την ιστορία μιας γυναίκας που διαφέρει από όλες τις άλλες καθώς μεγαλώνοντας διαβάζοντας τα σωστά βιβλία και έτσι απέκτησε έναν χαρακτήρα δυναμικό και ανεξάρτητο, με αυτήν την ανεξαρτησία, όμως, να μην είναι ολοκληρωμένη εξαιτίας της μη συστηματικής εκπαίδευσης της. Με άλλα λόγια η συγγραφέας δημιουργεί μία ιστορία ώστε μέσα από αυτήν να εκφράσει τις απόψεις της. Το πρόβλημα, όμως, είναι ότι η συγγραφέας προσπαθεί πολύ περισσότερο να αποδείξει κάτι παρά να γράψει λογοτεχνία, έτσι το βιβλίο πάσχει από έλλειψη συναισθήματος, κατεύθυνσης και ιδεών και μοιάζει να μένει στο τέλος ανολοκλήρωτο.

[George K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Βαθμολογία: 5/10

Δυστυχώς, μια από τις πιο αδιάφορες και ίσως κουραστικές αναγνώσεις της χρονιάς. Η Μαίρη Γουόλστονκραφτ σαν δοκιμιογράφος μπορεί να ήταν μπροστά για την εποχή της και σαν γυναίκα σίγουρα ξεχώριζε από τις υπόλοιπες για τις ιδέες και τον τρόπο σκέψης της, όμως το μικρό αυτό μυθιστόρημα (ή νουβέλα, ανάλογα πώς το βλέπει κανείς) δεν λειτούργησε και πολύ καλά. Θα ήταν σαφώς προτιμότερο να αναλύσει τις ιδέες της σε ένα δοκίμιο. Η πλοκή αδιάφορη και διχασμένη -περισσότερο λειτουργεί σαν εργαλείο για να αναπτύξει η συγγραφέας τις σκέψεις της για τη θέση των γυναικών, για τις σχέσεις ανάμεσα στα δυο φύλα κλπ-, οι χαρακτήρες μονοδιάστατοι και βαρετοί, ενώ και η γραφή δεν μου έκανε κάποια εντύπωση (αν και, εντάξει, είναι και μιας κάποιας ηλικίας!). Τέλος πάντων, υπάρχουν κάποια θετικά στοιχεία που έχουν να κάνουν με τις ιδέες της Γουόλστονκραφτ για τον κόσμο γύρω της, ενώ παίρνουμε και λίγο μάτι από τα ήθη και έθιμα της εποχής της, αλλά μέχρι εκεί.

Υ.Γ. Όσον αφορά την ελληνική έκδοση (Χίμαιρα), είναι άψογη. Του χρόνου σίγουρα θα διαβάσω το "Οι περιπέτειες του Κέιλεμπ Γουίλιαμς" του αναρχικού πολιτικού φιλοσόφου και συζύγου της Γουόλστονκραφτ, Γουίλιαμ Γκόντγουιν (κυκλοφορεί από τις ίδιες εκδόσεις και με περιμένει υπομονετικά τόσους μήνες).

[Isabel Beighton · Rating 4 out of 5]

nice bit boring tho slightly feminist which is lovely

[Saniya Kelkar · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Quela Font · Rating 4 out of 5]

«Li encantava estar en companyia d'homes lúcids, cosa que li permetia perfeccionar les seves facultats. No es trobava gaire sovint en companyia de gent així, perquè són d'una espècie rara».

[Ziyana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mary is so real for hating her husband

[Rebecca · Rating 1 out of 5]

Summary: The main character, who the writer named after herself, is superior to everyone.

There are long long long passages about how crappy everybody is, even her best friend.

5 paragraphs describing people who have no importance in the story whatsoever, and are only really talked about in these 5 paragraphs:

"When I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;
and it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on
them; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention
that they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The
daughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the
mother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.

They were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient
family, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they
took care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's
airs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning
propriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which
always hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing
that was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not
done before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when
this question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without
the trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.
This same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most
harmonic dance around her.

After this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had
received very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and
Spanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?
Hamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they
squalled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds
sown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,
they were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded
in, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to
captivate Lords.

They were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,
occasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we
except her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;
and these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously
adhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some
trivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of
which she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable
world so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the
sun.

It appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,
of the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of
weak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls."

Narrow souls!?

"The Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.
Johnson would have said, "They have the least mind.". And can such serve
their Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish
ceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not
conquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized
their hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is
unknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term
ornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for
mental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.

Could the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she
turned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.
Henry"

"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these
raptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by
what strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature
escape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it
is only to be felt; it escapes discussion."

"As she passed through the streets in an
hackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met
some women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,
made her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow
creatures!... "


And then she says! and then she says! look:
" Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded
by ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth."
Too well have you loved!? You are consumed with hate, Mary.
You aren't supposed to do something for the sake of gratitude and a place in heaven. Jeeze.


She also mentions about 4 times that marriage sucks, fair enough.

[jordan · Rating 2 out of 5]

awful reading experience. read maria and the wrongs of woman instead for that delightful wollstonecraftian prose with a more bearable plot (if you must)

[Charles Vereker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating glimpse into Mary Wollstonecraft's life - for surely much of this is drawn from her own life. What is lacking (is it even known?) is how much of the detail maps to her own experience. For instance was her journey back from Libson similar, did Fanny Blood die while crossing the room, in Mary W's arms? If these details can be confirmed via diaries and letters, then a new edition would be more than justified!

I read the Penguin Classic edition, with a forward by Janet Todd

Read this as an interlude to Romantic Outlaws by Charlotte Gordon.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wollstonecraft sets out to tell the story of of a woman who differs from others generally portrayed in novels of the 18th century. In this she succeeds. The main character, Mary, is both empathetic and intelligent, and doesn't hide her contempt of forced marriage or other follies of society. Except for the essaying on religion, enlightenment and romantic ideas, the story seems modern. Mary is like modern feminists who can be blunt and 'tell it like it is.' I recommend this book highly.

[Annabel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this short novel; I fell in love with the protagonist early on (despite her being self-indulgently woeful!) and willed her to be happy in life.
A great window into womens' lives in the 18th century too.

[Vincent Darlage · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written by Mary Shelley's mother, this book was a drama about a young woman's romantic friendships. Romantic friendships were close but typically non-sexual relationships between friends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in contemporary Western societies. It may include, for example, holding hands, cuddling, hugging, kissing, giving massages, or sharing a bed, without sexual intercourse or other sexual expression.

In this book, Mary (the character, not the author nor her daughter, also named Mary) has a romantic friendship with a female first, and then with a male, mostly while dodging a husband she despised (and frankly, didn't know). Mary's father entered her into marriage with a man she didn't know to keep the property from being divided up. Fortunately for Mary (I guess), the husband wasn't terribly keen on marriage either, and departed immediately for the continent to do other things.

Mary (again, the character) is a self-taught genius, from an idea that most geniuses are self-taught, rising above and beyond basic education. This is from a time when the word "genius" was only then starting to take on its modern meaning that we use it for. Mary is a rational and sensible creature, and is actually coded "masculine" (for the time) in many of her mannerisms. Her romantic friends, both the male and the female, are coded "feminine" (for the time) in their weaknesses and delicacy. Both relationships are a bit erotic, but not sexual. Indeed, the strong female character she offers here is often regarded as a first for novels.

The author Mary felt that marriage enchained geniuses rather than enriched them, so this novel also functioned as a critique of marriage.

The writing itself is weak, and overblown in its language, but it attempts to depict a liberated and reasoning female genius. Many experts consider it a milestone in feminist literature. I've been trying (this year and last) to dive into some of Mary Shelley's influences and surroundings, so this was the first time I ever read anything written by her mother, a well-known 18th century feminist. Wollstonecraft is best known for "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (which I haven't read yet), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason. This book is a step in that direction.

[Ana-Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Mary, a fiction" de Mary Wollstonecraft (1788)

Wollstonecraft a scris două romane, iar acesta este primul publicat, unul de care autoarea nu a fost prea mândră, dimpotrivă l-a numit un eșec artistic. Deși nu s-a priceput la scrierea romanelor (de altfel, a mai scris doar încă un roman), Mary W. a publicat în cei 38 de ani de viață lucrări cu greutate: eseuri, lucrări de filosofie politică și activism social, memorii de călătorie. Din tot ce a publicat, totuși, m-am decis să încerc acest roman, deși recenziile pe care le-am parcurs sunt foarte polarizate.
M-am gândit că va fi posibil să nu îmi placă stilul (totuși este o scriere de la 1788), pe de altă parte am fost foarte curioasă să văd prin ce a fost acest roman neconvențional. Și primul lucru pe care l-am aflat a fost cel legat de subtitlu. De obicei, în epocă, se foloseau alți termeni pentru biografiile unor eroi sau eroine, de exemplu "a history". "A fiction" este un subtitlu neobișnuit (totuși atât de interesant când te gândești că fiica sa, Mary Shelley va fi considerată mai târziu scriitoare de science-fiction). În deschiderea romanului, Wollstonecraft explică libertatea de creație pe care i-o dă ficțiunea:

"În această poveste nu tocmai artistică, fără episoade, este prezentată mintea unei femei care are puteri de gândire. Organele feminine au fost considerate prea slabe pentru această îndeletnicire grea; iar experienţa pare să justifice afirmaţia. Fără a intra în dezbateri legate de dotările fizice (ale femeii de a gîndi) — într-o ficțiune, o astfel de ființă poate fi lăsată să existe; o ființă a cărei măreție derivă din folosirea propriilor facultăți, nesubjugate opiniei altora; ci extrase chiar de eroină din sursa originală."

În epocă, formatorii de opinie susțineau că dimensiunile mai mici ale creierului femeii nu îi permit acesteia să fie la fel de rațională și activă precum un bărbat. Wollstonecraft nu intră în polemici legate de dimensiunea creierului și scrie în preambulul romanului că imaginează o situație în care eroina, în ciuda evidențelor biologice, reușește să se auto-educe, să raționeze, să facă alegeri care sunt în afara normelor sociale. Eroina se numește tot Mary, fapt care nu este întâmplător, romanul fiind condimentat cu elemente autobiografice.
Mary este o femeie care își formează propriile opinii citind independent, făcând lungi plimbări solitare în natură, având prietenii profunde cu oamenii și lucrând în folosul comunității. Ea este forțată de societate să intre în sarabanda căsătoriei, însă nu aderă la un stil de viață predefinit. Mary este o femeie care va alege să aibă două relații intime intense cu o femeie, și apoi cu un bărbat, în afara căsătoriei. Pentru acea epocă, eroina era prima dintr-o nouă categorie de personaje.
Evident, alegerile ei nu sunt compatibile cu normele sociale, Wollstonecraft nu ne prezintă un scenariu alternativ celui pe care îl critică, singura scăpare a eroinei rămâne moartea. Mary se îmbolnăvește:

"Starea ei delicată de sănătate nu promitea viață lungă. În momentele de tristețe solitară, o sclipire de bucurie îi trecea prin minte — Ea credea că se grăbește spre acea lume în care nu există nici căsătorie, nici forțare întru căsătorie."

În încheiere, într-adevăr, nu pot spune că lectura sau povestea au fost pe gustul meu din punct de vedere literar, dar cred că reprezintă un reper interesant de înțeles în privința luptelor de idei care au schimbat societatea, așa cum știm să ne bucurăm astăzi de ea.


https://www.nypl.org/events/tours/aud...

[Clare K H · Rating 3 out of 5]

This rating is not based on the literary worth of this novella, more the interesting history behind it.

Written in 1788, it gives us a peek at the early thinking of one of feminism’s original trailblazers. It follows a young woman who doesn’t quite fit the mould; she’s independent, thoughtful, and not afraid to question the roles society expects her to play.

Wollstonecraft was writing at a time when women had almost no rights, and you can really feel both her frustration and hope come through in Mary’s character. It’s especially interesting to read knowing that just a few years later, she’d go on to write A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, where she fully spells out her argument for women’s education and equality.

If you look at Mary: A Fiction through a historical lens, rather than judging it strictly as a piece of fiction (she’s no Jane Austen, let’s be honest), it feels like a warm-up to A Vindication. It’s more emotional and personal, especially with the main character sharing the author’s name, but it’s clearly coming from the same place and fighting the same fight.

[Claire · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to agree with Wollstonecraft's later opinion that this is not a strong work. It's absolutely worth reading to see the beginnings of her later political ideas, but as a work of fiction it's just not great. It's quite muddled and ambivalent, despite being an incredibly tragic narrative. This term is often misused and I don't think it could be properly applied to this text, but the only thing I kept thinking of over and over while reading this is that Mary is a, well, Mary Sue. It unfortunately really read like Wollstonecraft's personal fantasy, which is interesting in order to learn more about Wollstonecraft, but is pretty lame as a fiction.

[Emory Harty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve heard great things about Mary Wollstonecraft and yet I was somewhat disappointed by this novella. I expected more feminism but instead it felt as if she was merely scolding women for their sensibility. I also had a difficult time relating to the protagonist who is just a very strange woman in general. Apart from the homosexual tendencies, I really didn’t understand her character at all. The obsession with sick people and her preference for a dying man over her new husband was just odd. I’m still giving it three stars because I enjoyed her writing style, but I’m not sure I would read it again.

[Darío Méndez Salcedo]

Novela de aprendizaje y construcción del "yo" moral, cuya identidad descansa en un cristianismo de corte pietista que, no obstante, pugna por su liberación. El individuo, la mujer, es libre amando (sensibilidad interior), mas no casándose (convencionalismo externo). El texto puede resultar tosco y la narración, plana; no responde a los intereses estéticos de la novela, sino más bien a la clarificación psicológica y la catarsis del yo-en-el-mundo y del yo-con-Dios.