At 12:09 AM 7/07/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I think that I'm living proof that one needn't be tasteful to dislike
>Plath's work. And I don't find all those who like her work distasteful,
>only some of them.
>There is such a thing as a difference of opinion. But apparently not in
>Plath's case. Why should this be so?
Mark, this topic interested me from the very beginning. I tried not to get
too involved in the discussion as Plath always seems to elicit strong
differences of opinion. I'm a lecturer who's always taught English
literature, but I was not born in an English speaking country, so I feel
sometimes that my opinions are those of an outsider (good and bad
connotations attached). To me Plath is a poet for her Ariel. But this is
obviously only because I got acquainted with her work out of context. Rene
Girard, who is one of my favourite critics because he can still write with
both talent and humour, says that his students who were not from Europe had
a "strange" reaction to Camus. Why should we be in awe in front of this
Meursault? they said. Girard thinks they could react that way because they
were not critically "framed" by the established critical-philosophical
reception scheme. I can talk about Plath, but I lack the links which should
make me passionate (positively or negatively) about this topic. I taught
Plath, Rich and Harwood this term (the selection was made by the course
convener). I didn't try to impose any of my views, because I believe that
the students have a right to make up their own minds. I tend to sympathise
with Plath to a certain extent because of personal reasons -- my
scholarship, my being different, my writing -- not that I believe I have
either her talent or her problems, but I wouldn't be happy if people read
my work in terms of my differences. But I suspect/hope that reviews based
on discriminations of any kind wouldn't be published these days.
Ioana
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|