Dear Joanne,
That's a difficult question. The 'cult' of Sylvia Plath probably contributes
to her percieved tiresome aspect. yet perhaps it's unfair that she's so
commonly seen as purely internal and insular- most of us would seem that way
if the diaries of our youth were widely published.
Poetry needs shade as well as light to work, it's almost a prerequisite, so
I guess what we're talking about is attitude, style and tone rather than
subject matter.
Personally, having just read Louise Gluck's 'The Wild Iris', I am staggered
by her deftness with dark subjects. Here's a quote from Helen Vendler from
the back cover:
"Her poems... have achieved the unusual distinction of being neither
"confessional" nor "intellectual" in the usual senses of this word, which
are often thought to represent two camps in the life of poetry...What a
strange book 'The Wild Iris' is...written in the language of flowers...It
wagers everything on the poetic energy remaining in the old troubadour image
of the spring, the Biblical lilies of the field, natural resurrection."
What is a personal hell? Is it so different from an impersonal one? Does it
really matter whether we're talking about death and resurrection in a
garden, or in Russia (as in Akhmatova's 'Requiem' Cycle) or in Sylvia's
mind? I think it comes down to one of the best phrases I picked up in high
school: it's not what you say but how you say it.
How very intellectual of me! But as readers we have interpretitive choices
too: I tentatively feel that three's much existentialism in Plath's work,
along with all the nihilism.
But if it was a choice between a night out with Anna and Louise, and one
with Sylvia, I'm pretty sure which one I'd take.
Best wishes,
Cassie
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:05:28 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> which brings me to a question I believe passed by this list a short time
> ago, but I am afraid I wasn't paying attention. What is the consensus of
> poets who think writing poetry of a personal hell is self indulgent
drivel?
> I for one am moved and enjoy the honest emotions that can come from such
> self revealing work. What do others say? Humm? just wondering, Joanne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 5:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Plath as a miserable, self-obsessed b*****r
>
>
> > Dear Ally and Susanne,
> > I have to disagree with this assessment of Plath, who was fully
occupied
> > most of the time and had a clear and precise eye: her poems attest to
her
> > intense interest in things outside herself -- for me they often have
the
> > attention and accuracy of Hopkins' letters.
> > Mairead
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Ally Kerr wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Susanne,
> > >
> > > Jane Austen, in Persuasion, suggests that folk who are depressed
should
> avoid reading poetry.... She's probably got a point: so many poets are
> miserable self-obsessed b****rs like Plath! On the other hand, when us
> students were depressed in the 60s, we used to listen to a Leonard Cohen
LP
> and then we knew there was someone who felt worse than we did. Cheered
us
> up no end. The Rev Sydney Smith said read humour and get out a lot.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > Ally Kerr
> > > __________________________________________
> > > Sent by Sofcom Mail - The world's coolest and safest FREE email
service.
> > > http://www.sofcom.com.au
> > >
>
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|