Comment 3 of 13, added on March 8th, 2005 at 10:21 AM.
Ariel
I will dwell a bit on Jack Folsom's comments; although overall it is an
acceptable comment, there are some parts and opinins to which I disagree.
First of all, I don't think biographical criticism should used and applied
extensively when discussing Sylvia Plath's work, and neither when dealing
with literature in general. Especially since there is no need for
biographical information to justify Plath's art; it stands on its own and
speaks for itself. So Mr. Folsom's side-info about Plath writing the poem
on her b'day, "in a psychic rebirth" after her marriage failed is
unnecessary and with no relevance for the perception of the poem. Not to
mention that this "psychic rebirth" is highly questionable.
Moreover, the reference to Plath's breaking free from "the shoulds and
oughts of a woman's role in that time" - that time being her childhood- is
again false. Feminism as a movement and critical trend emerged and
developed in the late 1960s and 70s, after Plath's death, and I think the
goals of the movement were never fully attained. Although Plath criticised
and opposed socially prescribed roles (some even argue that she was a
feminist avant la lettre), she did live in a period when the image and the
roles of women promoted by popular culture were highly stereotypical .
Nevertheless, it is true that Plath invents and reinvents herself in her
work, gaining power, but she never really 'wins', since most of the times
her game is one of self-irony.
Another passage, "The dew that flies/Suicidal". But hold on there, you
Plath suicide fans! It is the dew that is suicidal, not the woman--why?
Because the dew evaporates into the heat of the sun as the morning
progresses." is not acurate, since she says she is the dew:
"And I/Am the arrow,/The dew that flies/Suicidal, at one with the
drive/Into the red/Eye, the cauldron of morning."
Another reproach to the comment above is that it attempts to be more an
explanation or a retelling of the poem rather than a critical opinion,
reaction or perception. I mean, literature should not be explained and
retold in other words, but experienced and felt.
Bilal Hasan from
Pakistan
Ariel
I will dwell a bit on Jack Folsom's comments; although overall it is an
acceptable comment, there are some parts and opinins to which I disagree.
First of all, I don't think biographical criticism should used and applied
extensively when discussing Sylvia Plath's work, and neither when dealing
with literature in general. Especially since there is no need for
biographical information to justify Plath's art; it stands on its own and
speaks for itself. So Mr. Folsom's side-info about Plath writing the poem
on her b'day, "in a psychic rebirth" after her marriage failed is
unnecessary and with no relevance for the perception of the poem. Not to
mention that this "psychic rebirth" is highly questionable.
Moreover, the reference to Plath's breaking free from "the shoulds and
oughts of a woman's role in that time" - that time being her childhood- is
again false. Feminism as a movement and critical trend emerged and
developed in the late 1960s and 70s, after Plath's death, and I think the
goals of the movement were never fully attained. Although Plath criticised
and opposed socially prescribed roles (some even argue that she was a
feminist avant la lettre), she did live in a period when the image and the
roles of women promoted by popular culture were highly stereotypical .
Nevertheless, it is true that Plath invents and reinvents herself in her
work, gaining power, but she never really 'wins', since most of the times
her game is one of self-irony.
Another passage, "The dew that flies/Suicidal". But hold on there, you
Plath suicide fans! It is the dew that is suicidal, not the woman--why?
Because the dew evaporates into the heat of the sun as the morning
progresses." is not acurate, since she says she is the dew:
"And I/Am the arrow,/The dew that flies/Suicidal, at one with the
drive/Into the red/Eye, the cauldron of morning."
Another reproach to the comment above is that it attempts to be more an
explanation or a retelling of the poem rather than a critical opinion,
reaction or perception. I mean, literature should not be explained and
retold in other words, but experienced and felt.
Bilal Hasan from Pakistan