IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

The Death of Fanny Godwin in Helen Edmundson’s Mary Shelley

Jessica Zhu
Dulwich College Suzhou, China73

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Abstract
Fanny Godwin, as the daughter of renowned writer and activist Mary Wollstonecraft andstepdaughter of political philosopher William Godwin, has received relatively limited attention
from literary scholars compared to the other eminent members of her family. Helen
Edmundson’s 2012 play Mary Shelley acknowledges the impacts that Fanny would have hadon her half-sister Mary while depicting Mary’s early life. This article is one of the first in-depth
textual analyses of the play and examines Edmundson’s portrayal of Fanny in the Godwin
household. In particular, the article investigates the extent to which Edmundson renders
familial relationships as the root cause of Fanny’s suicide, scrutinising the relationships which
Godwin and Mary have with Fanny alongside the influence of outside pressures. Drawing on
psychoanalytic and family-systems psychotherapy approaches, the article contends that
Edmundson places specific emphasis on dynamics within the Godwin family in contributing
to Fanny’s death, arguably more so than the few literary biographies that have explored thistragedy. To enrich the discussion, the researcher conducted a personal interview with Helen
Edmundson, facilitating a comparison between reader interpretations with the playwright’s
intentions. Ultimately, this article contributes to a deeper understanding of the Godwin family
and their profound impacts on Fanny’s life and death.
Keywords: Fanny Godwin, Mary Shelley, William Godwin, Helen Edmundson, historicaldrama, psychoanalysis

74

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Mary Shelley is a play by British playwright Helen Edmundson, joining her growing repertoireof original works and adaptations in 2012 (Logan, 2012). The play explores some of the criticalformative years of novelist Mary Shelley – author of Frankenstein: or, The Modern
Prometheus. It spans Mary’s return from Scotland in 1814 to her marriage to Percy Shelley in1816, and, notably, ends two months after the suicide of her older half-sister, Fanny Imlay
Godwin (Edmundson, 2012). Historically, Fanny Godwin1 played a prominent role in Mary
Shelley’s childhood as her closest sister, and Edmundson continues to enrich Fanny’s character
after their separation in Act 2 despite the play’s focus on Mary. This paper will hence focus on
Fanny’s characterisation and the causes of her suicide in Mary Shelley. It does not aim toconsider all the potential historical causes, only those present in the play.
Fanny Godwin’s death occurred while Mary Shelley was writing Frankenstein (Todd, 2007),
hence it is hoped that considering the causes of her suicide may reinforce one’s understandingof the themes explored within the renowned novel. There is also no consensus regarding themost prominent cause for Fanny Godwin’s fateful decision – as Richard Holmes points out,her presence was too often overlooked in studies of the Godwin and Shelley circles(Wollstonecraft & W. Godwin, 1987) – which provides ample room for examination,interpretation, and evaluation. Moreover, a research gap persists surrounding the play Mary
Shelley itself. While Mary Shelley as a novelist and her works are widely discussed in thescholarly world, the play featuring her early life did not invite much literary criticism despite
Helen Edmundson’s reputation as an award-winning playwright (Edmundson, 2012). The
secondary sources that do exist predominantly take the form of reviews of the production of
Mary Shelley (e.g., Gardner, 2012). These tend to comment on details such as set design, acting
skills, and pace, in addition to making descriptive observations about the plot. To the best of
the researcher’s knowledge, this essay provides the first in-depth textual analysis of thelanguage and literary elements of the play.
Through analysing Edmundson’s construction of character, this paper ultimately contends that
Edmundson portrays Fanny’s familial relationships as the integral cause of her suicide. This isevidenced by an examination of the Godwins’ treatment of her in their household – a prominent
component of the narrative throughout Mary Shelley – exacerbating the various psychologicalfactors reflected in the play which contribute to her downfall. There will also be an explorationof the ways in which Edmundson represents Fanny’s relationship with Mary and how sheviewed her sisters’ way of living, as well as the outside influences on the Godwin family.
To aid in evaluating the extent to which Edmundson renders familial relationships as the root
cause, this paper employs aspects of psychoanalytic literary criticism (Freud, 1899/2010; Freud,1997) and other psychological models to provide insight into how these causes may impact
Fanny’s state of mind. This process, whilst not systematically methodical, is inspired bytechniques observed in various articles analysing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein using
1

In an effort to distinguish between discussions of the historical versus fictional where needed, and to maintainconsistency, this article will hereafter refer to the historical figures as “Mary Shelley” and “Fanny Godwin” andthe characters of the play as “Mary” and “Fanny”. The essay does not aim to extensively discuss the differences
between the play and documented history, nor are there major discrepancies.

75

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

psychoanalysis (Hill, 1975; Veeder, 1986). By interpreting Fanny’s character using these
literary theories, this essay aims to clarify Edmundson’s depiction of the underlying connection
between the various stresses on Fanny and her death, compensating for the current lack of
criticism of this modern work. The researcher also obtained a direct interview with the author
to discuss her creation of character and narrative, as well as her intentions behind those choices(see appendix). This will be referenced to supplement the investigation in this essay, providing
an authorial perspective on the characterisation of Fanny and her motivations.
Fanny’s Relationship with Godwin
Fanny Godwin’s mother Mary Wollstonecraft came into acquaintance with William Godwin
when Fanny Godwin was two years old; she died a year later and left Fanny Godwin with her
stepfather (Hindle, 2006). Although Fanny Godwin was given his last name, she was anillegitimate and adopted child nonetheless (Todd, 2007), likely causing her to develop an
unstable sense of identity. Edmundson (2012) prominently conveys Fanny’s uncertain identity
in the play, notably establishing this at the end of Act 1 when Fanny remembers Godwin calling
her the “barrier-child” (p. 55) and expresses that she “always thought it meant… that [she] had
been in the way somehow” (p. 56), when in reality, it was a nickname her mother gave her.
Fanny’s matter-of-fact tone and intuitive gravitation towards a negative interpretation reflect
her vulnerable sense of belonging with Godwin. Even as early as in Act 1 Scene 3, Edmundson(2012) briefly but deliberately calls attention to Fanny’s precarious position in the family when
Mrs Godwin refers to Mary as “[Godwin’s] only daughter” (p. 19). Therefore, while Fanny’s
relationship with Godwin is of great importance to her, there are underlying rifts between them.
The present section explores Edmundson’s depiction of this relationship to determine its
significance in leading to Fanny’s suicide in the play.
The relationship further deteriorates after Mary and their stepsister, Jane Clairmont, leave thehouse with Percy Shelley,2 rendering Fanny the only remaining child. Edmundson outlines
Godwin’s escalating level of control over the family since then, as he initially prohibits Fanny
from going to see the runaways. In Act 3 Scene 4, Edmundson depicts Fanny meeting Shelley
for the first time after they left and clearly underlines her unease at resisting Godwin. Her
cautiousness, bordering on paranoia, is evident as she tells Shelley, “It took me an hour to walk
here. He’ll be wondering where I’ve gone” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 96). When Mary
unexpectedly appears in the scene, Fanny says she “promised him [not to see her],” and “rushes
away” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 99), apparently rejecting their sisterly bond to obey Godwin. With
Mary Shelley being a performative work, this may be highlighted visually onstage as audiences
see Fanny physically fleeing the scene, reflecting the turmoil brought about by Godwin’s
control and her conflicting loyalties.
Edmundson also demonstrates Godwin compounding the feelings of rejection which Fanny
often experienced throughout her life. Embodying the role of the peacemaker in the family,
2
To be consistent with the play, the literary characters based on William Godwin and Percy Shelley will hereafter
be referred to as “Godwin” and “Shelley” respectively.

76

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Fanny attempts to reconcile his relationship with Mary in Act 3 Scene 8, but Godwin “walks
out” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 113) before she finishes. Although it is largely a symbolic rejectionof Mary, who is the subject of the conversation, Godwin’s growing coldness towards Fanny
leading to that moment is heightened by the brevity of the stage direction, therefore possibly
creating the impression that Fanny also perceives it as a rejection of herself. Staging the playagain accentuates Fanny’s feelings of isolation, as she is left alone on the stage following
Godwin’s exit. Sampson (2018) makes a similar observation of William Godwin’s behavior
towards Fanny Godwin in her literary biography of Mary Shelley, questioning whether theirstory could have resulted differently “had Godwin been… less stubborn [and] been able to put
Fanny first” (p. 145). Although this is specifically relevant to the time of Fanny Godwin’s death,
it could be generalised to support the interpretation of Godwin’s treatment of Fanny under
Edmundson’s construction.
Perhaps the most consequential impact Godwin has on Fanny in the play is the instability
brought about by his shift in character. This is exemplified in Act 3 Scene 10 when Godwin
asserts, “The world does not stop turning because of the death of one child. Nor should it”(Edmundson, 2012, p. 115), after Mary’s infant daughter dies. Edmundson’s depiction of hislack of sympathy for Mary and his first grandchild is alarming, especially when contrasted withhis loving attitude towards her in Act 1 and when perceived with today’s emerging norm of
more nurturing parenting styles (Garcia et al., 2020). Fanny does not respond verbally, yet the
impact this has on her is seen when Edmundson (2012) describes Fanny “look[ing] at him in
dismay” (p. 115), followed immediately by Mrs Godwin’s entrance. Here, by interrupting theconversation with an entrance, Edmundson may be giving the actor playing Fanny time tovisibly convey the shock of Godwin’s words, highlighting this effect to the audience.
Literary and psychological theories such as psychoanalysis and family-systems psychotherapy
allow for further examination of Godwin and Fanny’s dynamic. American professor John V.
Knapp (2004) draws parallels between the two theories, asserting that family-systems
psychotherapy could form a useful component of psychoanalysis to compensate for the
relatively outdated Freudian views upon which much of psychoanalysis is based. He argues forthe importance of seeing characters “both alone and… in the context of the intimatessurrounding that character” (Knapp, 2004, p. 158), which renders family-systems theory moreconstructive in examining Godwin’s influence on Fanny’s characterisation compared with theintrapsychic psychoanalysis. For example, Knapp (1997) discusses psychiatrist Murray
Bowen’s model of the “solid” versus “pseudo-self” (Bowen, 1985, p. 228). Bowen (1985)
suggests that the “solid self” is constructed from one’s own values and beliefs, while the“pseudo-self” emerges out of social pressure and feeds on the values and beliefs of anotherindividual. In Mary Shelley, it could be argued that Fanny’s anxiousness causes her to present
with a “pseudo-self” built upon Godwin’s “solid self”, therefore it is all the more destructive
for her when Godwin’s character seems to transform throughout Act 3 and Act 4. This is further
supported by the shift in dialogue patterns in the scene discussed above, where Fanny defends
her opinions – such as by reminding Mrs Godwin that Mary and Shelley “have done so muchto make amends” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 116) when Mrs Godwin speaks bitterly of them –which is unusual for her character. It may reflect an active, desperate attempt to preserve her

77

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

disintegrating “pseudo-self” brought about by her emerging discordance with Godwin. Usinga family-systems approach on Fanny, one may conclude that Edmundson utilises dialogue andaspects of structure to suggest that Fanny’s superficial sense of self is dependent upon Godwin,
reinforcing the extent of his influence on her.
In a personal interview with the researcher, Edmundson contends that her creation of Fanny
was “profoundly disappointed in Godwin’s small-mindedness” about Mary and Shelley(personal communication, March 16, 2022). She believes Fanny would have “turned [thesefeelings] in on herself and felt… inherently bad for feeling them, and that would have led to a
lot of confusion for her inwardly.” This remark reinforces the family-systems interpretation,
underlining the twofold impact of Fanny’s relationship with Godwin. Not only would Fannybe hurt by Godwin’s volatile character and implicit rejection of her, but the resultant negative
feelings towards her father may compound her own emotional struggles. Sigmund Freud’s(1997) psychoanalytical theory of the Oedipus complex extends this argument. He suggeststhat a child will experience sexual desires towards the parent of the opposite sex during early
development (Freud, 1997), and Edmundson corroborates that these emotions could be present
in her characterisation of Fanny (personal communication, March 16, 2022). Integrating
Edmundson’s comments with these psychoanalytic readings reveals Fanny’s twin feelings of(filial) sexual desire and antipathy towards Godwin in the play, evoking an internal conflict
which may be responsible for the emergence of suicidal thoughts.
William Godwin had written of himself and Fanny Godwin that there was “no friend upon
whose heart she had so many claims as upon mine” (Philp, 1993, p. 92) to justify adopting her
after Wollstonecraft’s death. Various critics imply that he then became Fanny Godwin’s
primary parental figure (e.g., Hindle, 2006; St Clair, 1989; Todd, 2007). Todd (2007) recounts
how William Godwin refused to give her up to her aunts and asserts that the different women
who had attempted to take Wollstonecraft’s place were “no substitute for a beloved mother”(p. 43). Edmundson (2012) echoes this in Mary Shelley, communicating that, with a deceased
mother, estranged father, and despised stepmother, Fanny likely built her ideology and identity
predominantly on that of Godwin. Therefore, their dynamic will have profound impacts on
Fanny. The extent of Godwin’s control over her, his symbolic rejection of her, and his
instability in character all contribute significantly to Fanny’s suicide.
Fanny’s Relationship with MaryIn Victoria Shorr’s (2019) literary biography, she partially writes through Mary Shelley’s
perspective and provides insight into the nature of her sororal relationship with Fanny Godwin.
Shorr (2019) describes Mary Shelley as “Fanny’s closest living relative, her sister, half-sister,”and questions, through Mary Shelley’s voice, why people “kept that word, ‘half,’ between them”(p. 127). Hindle (2006) also indicates that Fanny Godwin was left with “a lack ofcompanionship from any source other than her letters from Mary” (p. 335) after her sisters’
departure. They both point to Fanny Godwin’s intimate relationship with Mary Shelley and its
great significance to her, therefore the ways in which this relationship progresses in Mary78

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Shelley will likely influence Fanny considerably. This section strives to examine Edmundson’s
depiction of such influences.
From the beginning of the play in Act 1 Scene 2, Edmundson establishes a strong sisterly bond
between Mary and Fanny. The text vividly describes them meeting after Mary’s return,especially in the stage directions: “FANNY rushes to her. They embrace” (Edmundson, 2012,
p. 11). The loving relationship is signified visually by the liveliness of their embrace, andforegrounding this relationship from the beginning highlights its importance. Edmundson alsoachieves this by depicting the empathy they have for each other. For example, Mary asks if
Fanny has been “lonely, with everyone away” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 14), and Fanny
endearingly calls Mary “my poor cold girl” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 16) as she has just travelledby sea.
After Mary’s elopement, however, many literary biographies underline the sense of distance
between Mary Shelley and Fanny Godwin. Todd (2007) cites an argument that, historically,occurred a few months before Fanny Godwin’s suicide; Mary Shelley blamed her for
repeatedly asking them for money on William Godwin’s behalf and thus apparently siding with
him in this ongoing antithesis between their two households (Todd, 2007), while Fanny
Godwin accused Mary and Percy Shelley of treating her as their “laughing-stock” and “constantbeacon of [their] satire” (F. Godwin, 1816, as cited in Stocking, 1995, p. 49).
Conversely, Mary and Fanny’s sisterly bond is maintained in Mary Shelley. Through the birthand death of Mary’s first child, Edmundson continuously renders Fanny as a source of comfort
for her. This is especially prominent in Act 3 Scene 7 when Mary says, “I wanted you to come.
I kept asking for you” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 107), demonstrating that Fanny is still valued andneeded by her. Structurally, Edmundson places this scene in close proximity to when she
conveys Godwin’s rejection of Fanny (as mentioned in the previous section), possibly
heightening the contrast between Fanny’s relationships with her two closest family members
at that time. Later in Scene 10, after Mary’s child dies, Fanny defends the necessity of visiting
her by using the short declarative sentences: “She asked for me. She wanted me. I should havegone days ago” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 115). The anaphora aurally endows a rhythm to Fanny’s
speech, reinforcing the importance she holds in Mary’s need of her. Edmundson’s use of themirrored linguistic structures in Mary and Fanny’s respective dialogue, with both characters
utilising the verbs “want” and “ask”, further creates an echoing quality, and this symbolicallyemphasises their solidarity with each other.
Regardless, Edmundson goes on to depict a significant conflict between Mary and Fanny in
Act 4, which may be considered the most consequential part of their relationship in leading toFanny’s death. In Scene 2, Fanny visits Mary, Jane, and Shelley and becomes distraught by
their new way of life. Particularly after hearing of Jane’s pregnancy with Lord Byron’s child,
Edmundson (2012) illustrates Fanny’s uncertainty by conveying that “it was a mistake” for her
to come (p. 129). Mary becomes defensive and asserts: “She clearly can’t bear to spend anothermoment in this house of iniquity” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 129). Here, Edmundson directly
establishes Mary’s remoteness and indifference through the jarring third-person pronoun “she”

79

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

when they have all been speaking to Fanny. This shift in attitude seems to starkly disregard
everything that Fanny has done for her throughout Act 3. What originates as a conflict inideologies is made fatally personal by Mary’s need to defend their lifestyle – a struggle likelyinternalised against the judgements of society – causing Fanny to feel ostracised andcompounding the rejection she has endured from Godwin. When considering the gender roles
typical of England during the Regency period (in which the play is set), women’s reliance on
their fathers and husbands points to the importance of familial support for them (Badinjki,2019). At this point in the play, Mary and Fanny have both antagonised their father in someway; yet Mary is able to depend on Shelley while Fanny has no such figure, rendering theirsororal relationship even more crucial and their disagreement more devastating for her.
Edmundson also highlights Mary’s influence on Fanny’s decision to take her life through thehighly symbolic writing in Act 4. She devises a scene in which Mary dreams of Fanny
committing suicide just before the actual incident is staged, amplifying the impression ofMary’s underlying sense of guilt. Within the dream, Mary repeats, “Reach out to me!”
(Edmundson, 2012, p. 133), which represents her desire to help and save her sister despite theirdisagreements. Returning to psychoanalysis, Freud’s (1899/2010) The Interpretation ofDreams may illuminate Edmundson’s authorial choices here. Freud suggests that dreams are ameans through which an individual’s unconscious desires and anxieties convey themselves,
which corroborates an audience’s likely interpretation of Mary’s dream as indicative of her
care towards Fanny and fear that she may lose her. This coincides with Edmundson’s own
intentions behind the writing of this scene. In a personal interview, she contends: “[Mary’s]
subconscious is trying to tell her that Fanny is in dire need of her and that she’s failing her”
(personal communication, March 16, 2022). The play recognises the function of dreams in
expressing emotions concealed from conscious thought, as Freud (1899/2010) proposes, andutilises this as a device to communicate such emotions to the audience.
However, in Freud’s (1899/2010) analysis of common categories of dreams, he also assertsthat dreaming of a loved one’s passing, specifically the death of a sibling, reflects “a wish thatthe person in question may die” (p. 267). To support this, Freud cites the hostility and rivalry
experienced by young children towards their siblings and the resultant desire for them to die,which allegedly persists in the unconscious after the children’s egos are tempered by morealtruistic moral principles. While it is postulated that Fanny Godwin may have experienced
such antagonism, as she “felt occasional hostility – especially to a sister who… bore hermother’s name” (Todd, 2007, p. 43), others argue that Mary Shelley was, “in a significant
sense… the only ‘child’” (Hill, 1975, p. 344), and Sampson describes Fanny Godwin as “shyand loyal” from Mary Shelley’s perspective (Sampson, 2018, p. 92). Hill and Sampson both
highlight Fanny Godwin’s lack of self-importance and visibility in the family, therefore her
existence should not have posed a threat to Mary Shelley. This aligns with the limited
impression of competition between Mary and Fanny in the play, hence this essay rejects thispart of psychoanalysis as an interpretation of Edmundson’s portrayal of Mary’s dream. The
dream underlines Mary’s regret at contributing to Fanny’s downfall, not her desire for it. The
significance of their relationship then not only lies in their external conflict, but it is also

80

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

enhanced through the depiction of Mary’s subconscious awareness of the impact she has had
on Fanny.
Overall, Edmundson characterises Fanny and Mary’s relationship as more loving andharmonious than in most literary biographies. Edmundson depicts Fanny grappling with aninternal conflict between her loyalty to Mary and her judgement towards their way of living.
Mary and Jane’s unacceptance when she finally voices this judgement becomes an immediate
trigger for her suicide; this is conveyed structurally, by placing the scenes in close successionof each other, and by appealing in part to a psychoanalytic reading of dreams. The dynamic
between Fanny and Mary constitutes an additional element of Fanny’s familial relationships,
thereby further emphasising their significance in leading to her death.
Outside Pressures
While Edmundson depicts underlying sociocultural and psychological causes for Fanny’s
strained familial relationships, the various outside stresses leading up to her suicide should not
be neglected. This section examines the impacts of the trying financial situation of the Godwin
family and negative public opinion towards them as shown in the play; these are also aspectsof the Godwins’ and Shelleys’ lives often explored in literary biographies. Ultimately, theseoutside stresses are exacerbated by the dynamic between Fanny and her family, in turnheightening the negative impact of her familial relationships.
Finances
The theme of finance is prominently established in Mary Shelley from Act 1 Scene 3, when
Edmundson (2012) reveals that the purpose of Shelley’s presence in the Godwin household has
been to lend Godwin money to resolve some of their financial “difficulties” (p. 24). The ideaof debt is also entwined with various plot details, for example when Mrs Godwin confesses tohaving been jailed for debt soon after Jane was born. Their economic struggles are moststrikingly displayed in Act 3 Scene 3 when the family prepares to sell their bookshop.
Edmundson (2012) utilises a semantic field of business such as “valuer,” “capital,” and“investment” (p. 92), which is uncommon to other sections of the play, highlighting the unusual
situation they are in and the prevalence of money as a concern. When a knock sounds at thedoor, the stage direction “they all stop dead” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 93) directly indicates thepressure they are experiencing from creditors, as the idiom reflects the sense of impending
danger in the household.
While this scene does not overtly underline the impact of these outside stresses on Fanny, as
she appears relatively optimistic, the lens of family-systems psychotherapy may crystallize thedynamics existing within the Godwin family. Knapp (1997) makes note of Virginia Satir’s(1988) theory in The New Peoplemaking of four distinct coping roles seen within families
during adverse circumstances: the “placator,” “blamer,” “supereasonable,” and “irrelevant”(Satir, 1988, as cited in Knapp, 1997, p. 230). Edmundson’s depiction of the Godwins in thisscene might be fitted to this model, where Fanny, Mrs Godwin, and Godwin each play one of81

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

the first three roles respectively. Firstly, instead of countering Mrs Godwin’s numerous
condescending remarks, Fanny says, “Please don’t upset yourself” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 93),
exemplifying the placator “sooth[ing] everybody else… at the expense of or denial of self”(Satir, 1988, as cited in Knapp, 1997, p. 230). Moreover, Edmundson presents Mrs Godwin as
the source of conflict as she antagonises both Godwin and Fanny, characteristic of the blamerrole. Interestingly, Satir (1988) suggests that the behaviour of the blamer originates from a lackof self-worth. Edmundson (2012) uses a triadic structure of verbs when Mrs Godwin describes
the effort she has put in for the bookshop, “running to and fro to the printers, standing behindthat counter in the draughts, writing into the small hours” (p. 92), and audiences may interpret
this as an example of Mrs Godwin trying to elevate her worth in the family. Finally, while one
could only speculate as to whether Godwin is truly optimistic about their situation or“den[ying] his… feelings at all costs” (Satir, 1988, as cited in Knapp, 1997, p. 231), his
hyperrational mindset is certainly set in stark contrast with Mrs Godwin’s; a contrast which
may manifest onstage through the actors’ disparate uses of prosody, one restrained and theother fretful. Edmundson demonstrates Godwin frequently using fragmented declarative
sentences, focusing on what Satir describes as the “context” of the situation (Satir, 1988, as
cited in Knapp, 1997, p. 231). He dismisses his underlying concerns about selling the bookshop
by emphasising that it is a “promising concern” for buyers and that the valuer is “thorough”(Edmundson, 2012, p.92), avoiding the root problem in their family – an example of focusing
solely on the contextual and not personal elements.
The theory provides a framework for the Godwins’ conflict in response to outside stresses, andSatir directly sets this model against “healthy, well-functioning families,” suggesting that theformer “[grows] out of low self-worth” (Satir, 1988, as cited in Knapp, 1997, p. 230). Therefore,
Edmundson’s linguistic crafting of this scene goes beyond portraying their financial pressures
but additionally consolidates the problematic dynamics within Fanny’s family. On the other
hand, one might suggest that the reality is more nuanced, and certain characters actuallyembody multiple roles. For example, Edmundson (2012) characterises Fanny as employing
mechanisms of the supereasonable whilst striving to make peace, also turning to context bycontending that they have only been “a little unlucky with investment” (p. 92), and Godwin
attempts at soothing Mrs Godwin as she worries about being arrested for debt. In this way,
Edmundson creates a family dynamic of the Godwins which matches Satir’s model in many
aspects but is also more complex and multifaceted.
Reputation
Alongside financial concerns, the impacts and pressure of reputation are also prevalent in theplay. In Act 3 Scene 8, Edmundson explicitly conveys the negative public opinion of Godwin
after Mary and Jane’s elopement. Mrs Godwin reminds him of the widespread rumours: “Yousold your daughters—one for eight hundred and the other for seven” (Edmundson, 2012, p.
112). A modern audience may find the language of trade here particularly alarming, as the ideaof trading one’s children for profit is far beyond present society’s moral standards. The impacts
of a damaged reputation are also arguably more consequential than ever now with the rise ofsocial media (Aon & Pentland Analytics, 2018). The influence of this stress on Fanny is82

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

apparent in Act 4 Scene 1, in which Edmundson describes Fanny actively reacting against the
public’s accusations towards her sisters. She contends that it is “simply scurrilous gossip... it’s
nonsense. It must be” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 121). The series of short declarative sentencescharacterises Fanny as unusually assertive; Edmundson depicts Fanny’s strident reactions tohostility from the public as determination to defend her sisters. This greatly amplifies the effectwhen she realises their real way of living later in the play, supporting the argument of theprevious section that it becomes an immediate trigger for her suicide.
Finally, Edmundson echoes many literary biographies (e.g., Hindle, 2006; Sampson, 2018) inconveying that the ultimate consequence of their damaged reputation is Fanny’s aunts
rescinding their offer for her to go work in their school – though Pollin (1965) questions thehistorical accuracy of this event. Such a rejection denies Fanny the only chance she has at thatpoint of escaping the Godwin household and finding a sense of purpose for herself. In a
personal interview, Edmundson expresses her belief that Fanny might not have died if there
was “some sort of opportunity for her… so that she could start to enrich her life and feel that
she had somewhere to pour her energy” (personal communication, March 16, 2022). Thus, thefamily’s shattered reputation is presented as another considerable factor leading to Fanny’s
suicide.
While the ideas of debt and reputation are commonly perceived as being separate from that offamily in the typical dichotomy between the public and private spheres, this essay suggests that
Edmundson entwines them to render the outside influences on Fanny as being predominantly
familial pressures. This is evident as Edmundson places the public stresses and their impacts
on Fanny exclusively in the context of the Godwin family. Money becomes a salient stress forher parents, and the “scurrilous gossip” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 121) in newspapers concerns
her sisters’ reputations. Fanny becomes tethered to the household as the only child remaining
from Act 3 onwards, therefore there is naturally more emphasis on her familial interactions.
Compared to literary biographies of Fanny Godwin (e.g., Hindle, 2006; Todd 2007),
Edmundson prominently restricts the experiences of her creation with the constraints offamilial relationships. Edmundson’s depictions of outside stresses primarily affect Fanny
through aggravating the problematic relationships between her and those closest to her, hence
they may be seen as subsidiary to, instead of separate from, the influence of family as the root
cause of her suicide.
Conclusion
The death of Fanny marks a significant turning point in Mary Shelley, and Edmundson portrays
various factors contributing to her downfall. She expressed that, after Mary and Jane’s escape,“it feels impossible for [Fanny] to go” (H. Edmundson, personal communication, March 16,2022), as Fanny becomes bound to the household by her sense of duty to her stepparents and atacit pressure from them to stay. As a result, her life as depicted in the play essentially revolves
around her family. In particular, this essay contends that Fanny’s relationships with Godwin
and Mary respectively are rendered as the most prominent factors leading to her suicide. Whileboth pose short-term stresses on her, the former carries more long-term impacts, as Fanny’s
precarious sense of identity stems from her childhood with Godwin, and the latter results in an

83

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

immediate trigger for her suicide (her conflicting moral principles with, and the rejection from,her sisters). Although pressures from the wider society – such as insurmountable debt anddamage to their reputations – are certainly noteworthy, Edmundson ultimately depicts them as
being familial in nature. Therefore, familial relationships are presented as the root cause of
Fanny’s suicide in Mary Shelley to a great extent.
This essay has seen a consideration of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1899/2010; Freud, 1997) andfamily-systems psychotherapy (Knapp, 1997; Knapp, 2004) as lenses through which to inspect
the literary work. Freudian psychoanalysis offers some insights into Edmundson’s renderingof Fanny’s relationships with Godwin and Mary; however, a comparatively modern component
is required for a more comprehensive examination beyond the typical interplay associated with
the Oedipus complex. To this end, certain models of family-systems psychotherapy appear tobe productive in clarifying the dynamics seen within the Godwin family and further underline
their consequence to Fanny.
Regardless of the approach, the prominence Edmundson places on the Godwin family members’interactions with Fanny inevitably implicates them in the causes of this tragedy. ThroughGodwin’s characterisation, Edmundson highlights the importance for children to be valued andgiven agency growing up; and through Mary, Edmundson questions the repercussions of
pursuing a life of “freedom and free love” (personal communication, March 16, 2022), as Maryand Shelley do, on those around them. In Act 4, Fanny accuses Mary’s way of life as making“children grow up feeling unloved, unvalued, out of place” (Edmundson, 2012, p. 32), whichis reminiscent of how Fanny herself grew up and encapsulates the devastating impacts that her
familial relationships have on her.
For those with an interest in Mary Shelley’s early life and family of origin, Edmundson’s playoffers plentiful insights and successfully brings this significant part of the renowned author’s
history onto the stage. The present essay hopes to stimulate further literary analysis on Mary
Shelley and its depiction of Fanny’s suicide. Firstly, future studies may scrutinise how
Edmundson presents Fanny’s other familial relationships. For example, Mrs Godwin’s thinlyveiled disdain towards Fanny is consistently evident in the play. Her view of Fanny as a burden
on the family is particularly noteworthy, as the idea is even reflected in Fanny Godwin’s suicide
note, where she stated that her “life ha[d] only been a series of pain to those persons who ha[d]hurt their health in endeavouring to promote her welfare” (F. Godwin, 1816, as cited in St Clair,
1989, p. 411). The character of Shelley may also be examined, as scholars have theorised that
Fanny Godwin might have committed suicide due to her unrequited romantic feelings for Percy
Shelley (Pollin, 1965). Hints of their connection are indeed seen in Act 1 of the play,
particularly when Fanny and Shelley first meet. Alternatively, intrapsychic factors such as
lacking a sense of purpose additionally impact Fanny’s mental state and view towards life.
Having a sense of purpose in life is commonly considered to be crucial for one’s wellbeing(Kim et al., 2022), yet Fanny’s search for her own purpose is only implicitly explored within
Mary Shelley until nearer to her death, which reflects how her life has been spent prioritisingothers and neglecting herself. In the end, the inability to find or actualise a greater meaning in84

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

her life when she is rejected by her aunts’ school (as discussed in the previous section) acts as
one of the immediate triggers for Fanny’s suicide and warrants further exploration.
Fanny Godwin’s life was lost during her prime years, and Mary Shelley provides much forcontemporary audiences to reflect upon in its wake. This tragedy should not be simply swept
away as an insignificant incident in the greater Godwin–Shelley story. After all, as Edmundsonsuggests, Fanny is like the “touchstone” in the play; realistically, “more of us would be a Fannyin that house than a Mary or a Jane” (personal communication, March 16, 2022).

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Mr T. Byrne for his invaluable
feedback and guidance throughout the making of this essay, as well as Dr M. Jones for helping
me prepare to submit the article for publication. A special thank you to the playwright Helen
Edmundson for granting me a personal interview.

85

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

References
Aon & Pentland Analytics. (2018). When Crisis and Technology Collide: Protecting
Reputation in the Digital Age. Retrieved July 30, 2022 fromhttps://www.aon.com/reputation-risk-cyber-social-media-pentland-analyticsaon/index.html
Badinjki, T. (2019). Stereotypical gender roles and new construct of marriage. In Pride andPrejudice. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 7(1),43–47. http://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0701005
Bowen, M. (1985). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice (3rd ed.). Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson.
Edmundson, H. (2012). Mary Shelley. London, England: Nick Hern Books.
Freud, S. (1997). Female sexuality. In P. Rieff (Ed.), Sexuality and the Psychology of Love
(pp. 184–201). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Freud, S. (2010). The Interpretation of Dreams: The Complete and Definitive Text (J.
Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published
1899).
Garcia, O. F., Fuentes, M. C., Garcia, E., Serra, E., & Garcia, F. (2020). Parenting warmthand strictness across three generations: Parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207487
Gardner, L. (2012, March 23). Mary Shelley – Review [Review of the production of Mary
Shelley, by Helen Edmundson, at West Yorkshire Playhouse, Leeds]. The Guardian.
Retrieved February 8, 2022 fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/mar/23/mary-shelley-theatre-review
Hill, J. M. (1975). Frankenstein and the physiognomy of desire. American Imago, 32(4),335–358. Retrieved February 14, 2022 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26303110
Hindle, M. (2006). Victim of romance: The life and death of Fanny Godwin. Women’s
Writing, 13(3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09699080600852940
Kim, E. S., Chen, Y., Nakamura, J. S., Ryff, C. D., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2022). Sense of
purpose in life and subsequent physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health: An
outcome-wide approach. American Journal of Health Promotion, 36(1), 137–147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211038545
Knapp, J. V. (1997). Family systems psychotherapy, literary character, and literature: An
introduction. Style, 31(2), 223–54. Retrieved February 22, 2022 fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/45063758
Knapp, J. V. (2004). Family-systems psychotherapy and psychoanalytic literary criticism: A
comparative critique. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 37(1), 149–66.
Retrieved February 22, 2022 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44030066
Logan, B. (2012, March 15). Helen Edmundson: The hit woman. The Guardian. Retrieved
November 5, 2023 from https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/mar/15/helenedmundson-the-hit-woman
Philp, M. (Ed.). (1993). The Political and Philosophical Writings of William Godwin: Vol. 3.
An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. London, England: Pickering & Chatto.

86

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Pollin, B. R. (1965). Fanny Godwin’s suicide re-examined. Études Anglaises, 18(3), 258–68.
Sampson, F. (2018). In Search of Mary Shelley: The Girl Who Wrote Frankenstein. New
York, NY: Pegasus Books.
Satir, V. (1988). The New Peoplemaking. Mountain View, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Shorr, V. (2019). Midnight: Three Women at the Hour of Reckoning. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton & Company.
St Clair, W. (1989). The Godwins and the Shelleys: The Biography of a Family. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Stocking, M. K. (Ed.). (1995). The Clairmont Correspondence: Letters of Claire Clairmont,
Charles Clairmont, and Fanny Imlay Godwin, 1808–1879. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Todd, J. (2007). Death and the Maidens: Fanny Wollstonecraft and the Shelley circle.
London, England: Bloomsbury Reader.
Veeder, W. (1986). The negative Oedipus: Father, Frankenstein, and the Shelleys. Critical
Inquiry, 12(2), 365–90. Retrieved February 20, 2022 fromhttps://doi.org/10.1086/448336
Wollstonecraft, M., & Godwin, W. (1987). A Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, andDenmark (R. Holmes, Ed.). London, England: Penguin Books. (Original work
published 1796).
Corresponding author: Jessica Zhu
Email: jessica.zhu0324@gmail.com

87

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

Appendix
Extracts from Transcript of Personal Communication with Helen Edmundson
Interviewee: Helen Edmundson.
Interviewer: Jessica Zhu [researcher].
Date: March 16th, 2022.
Location: Online.
RESEARCHER: To discuss your depiction of Fanny in the play, are there any devices thatshould be considered central to her characterisation?
EDMUNDSON: I would say that running through the whole play, in relation to Mary, butmore so to Fanny, is water. That stemmed from the fact that, obviously, Mary
Wollstonecraft tried to drown herself, famously, at one point. I think what Mary
Wollstonecraft was budding up against, and it’s just this that she was overflowing; she
was so bright, she was so intelligent, she had such a life force, and sometimes, because
she kept coming up against barriers, she would be forced into a different direction –sometimes directions which weren’t very good for her – and I think that it had a bad
effect on her mental health. It meant that she was constantly in a state of struggling anddesperation, and even though she loved Fanny very much, obviously it got to a point
where she tried to take her own life in water. I think that’s very significant, and I thinkit’s very significant that it’s near the sea when [Fanny] does take her own life, that she’s
drawn to the sea as though she’s being drawn back towards her mother and to the same
struggle which she feels running through her, that ran through her mother. I think Fanny’s
tragedy is a difficult start in that sense in that not really belonging, and her past being somuch of a mystery to her, and her never really knowing. I think the piece in the playwhere they read the mother’s diaries and when they read Godwin’s accounts of theirmother and so on, I think that’s the first time she begins to realise why there’s these
difficult blank areas around her past and where she came from. That very sad thing shesays about when Godwin used to call her the barrier child, that she thought it meant she
was in the way. I think that, for Fanny, if she had more space in the dynamic of the family,
and if she’d been brought up to feel that she had more agency and importance, then it
could have been the beginning of a real journey of discovery about herself, but because
she doesn’t have those things and she is psychologically damaged by the upbringing she’s
had and by losing her mother and so on, there’s no way for those emotions to go.
RESEARCHER: There was a scene in which Mary dreams of Fanny attempting suicide, also
in the water just like their mother; what would you say it reflects about Mary’s feelingsat that point in time?
EDMUNDSON: I think Mary knows that she’s failing Fanny, and I think her subconscious istrying to tell her that Fanny is in dire need of her, and that she’s failing her.

88

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023[……]
RESEARCHER: What do you think was the extent of the emerging discordance between
Fanny and Godwin’s ideologies as the play progressed?
EDMUNDSON: I think Fanny was profoundly disappointed in Godwin’s small-mindedness,or what she perceived as being small-mindedness, and the fact that he was clinging on tothis resentment, I think that she felt that there was a degree of pride in that which wasn’t
useful pride or had anything to do with the good of mankind or, on a small level, the goodof Mary and his relationship with Mary moving forwards. I think Fanny is constantly
being disappointed by people; by Godwin, as she starts to see a side of him that doesn’t
live up to her expectations of him; by Mary, by Shelley; and I don’t think she held Janein great esteem, because they’re so very very different.
[……]
RESEARCHER: Within the field of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud’s theory of the Oedipus
complex has often been used to analyse Mary’s Frankenstein. Would you consider thisto be relevant to the characterisation in the play as well?
EDMUNDSON: I think it does make complete sense, certainly in terms of Mary, really, interms of most children and their parents, I’m sure it’s true that they go through that phase
where they have to kill the father in order to feel they can thrive. But then Fanny is adifferent character; with Mary it’s much more expressed, it’s more overt, and she’s felt
powerful enough to be able to express it. Whereas I think, unfortunately, it won’t havesat easily with Fanny when she had negative feelings towards Godwin, I think she would
have turned them in on herself and felt that she should feel guilty about them and that
she was inherently bad for feeling them, and that would have led to a lot of confusion for
her inwardly. I think, if a child can’t separate itself from its parent by going through these
emotions, if they can’t do that successfully and they become stuck, it can be quite
damaging. Not only can she not physically separate herself from Godwin, but because
Mary has done so so completely and devastatingly, and Jane has done the same to Mrs
Godwin, I think, in a way, Fanny isn’t really able to do what she ought to be able to,there’s no space for her to do that, so I think that adds to her difficulties.
[……]
RESEARCHER: Looking at Fanny’s relationship with Mary and Shelley and her relationshipwith Godwin, do you think one had a greater, or more negative, influence on Fanny thanthe other?
EDMUNDSON: There’s two different ways of going for Fanny, really. Personally, I don’t
think Fanny was psychologically suited to live the kind of life Mary and Shelley wereembracing. I think she was too sensitive, too acutely aware of people’s opinions, I don’t

89

IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship

Volume 12 – Issue 2 – 2023

think she had the same solid sense of self that Mary and Shelley had, which is a sort ofprivilege to be raised with that kind of solid sense of self belief, and I don’t think Fanny
had those things, so I don’t think she would have fared well at all in Mary and Shelley’s
world. Of course, we see as the play goes on that she does become stuck and stifled evenmore because Mary and Jane escapes. She’s the one who’s left, and it feels impossible
for her to go. She can’t carry on with that level of, this stuff that she has inside her, thatpower of those things that she’s feeling, being so locked in with no sight of how she’s
going to find an outlet; it leads to her taking her own life, and I do find her incredibly
tragic. But, having said that – obviously Godwin offers stability, to some extent, though
he always had his debts, and they were always in danger of being tapped out of the house,but there was at least some sense of stability and being able to live within society. But I
don’t think Godwin understood Fanny, and I certainly don’t think Mrs. Godwin
understood Fanny or had much interest in her, and she was fairly friendless. I’d like tothink that if she had gone back to Godwin that day and she had tried to move forwardwith her life, then at some point, something might have happened which would haveopened up some sort of opportunity for her in a small way so that she could start to enrich
her life and feel that she had somewhere to pour her energy. She was a sort of, girl in thewrong place, really.
RESEARCHER: Finally, what would you say is the overall message behind Fanny’s
characterisation – or how you decided to portray her story – in the play?
EDMUNDSON: I was very much thinking, when I was writing the play, about the fact thatthe victims in this pursuit of freedom and free love and living your life to the full, arenearly always the women almost exclusively. Because- It’s a little bit like Shelley’s wifein the way that she ends up drowning herself as well in the Hyde park, that in a way,
Fanny encapsulates the female energy and the female dilemma in this mix. Because Mary
is who she is, because of her talent and her strength of character and her confidence, andShelley’s great support of her and putting her forward and beyond, that works for Mary;but Fanny has a very particularly sensitive female sensibility. I wanted us to see, in thisgreat debate and great question which a lot of us have to think at times about how we live
our lives, and do we pursue what it is that we desire, do we make sure that we live every
moment to the full no matter the cost – are we essentially, to some extent, hedonistic andselfish, but also striving for doing great things for the world and changing the world. On
the other hand, do we simply try to live for other people as well as ourselves, etc., andthat’s a very female thing, I think, that we often have to answer those questions. Even
now, I think women more often have to dig deep and think, should I pursue this, shall I
follow this dream, or shall I be the one who’s there to look after the children, or shall I
be the one who’s there to support my mom and dad as they’re getting older, whatever it
is, I think very often it’s women who is still facing those questions. I think Fanny is likethe touchstone, really; realistically, more of us would be a Fanny in that house than aMary or a Jane.

90