 |
 |
I hate self-indulgent poetry, even when I write it myself. I also hate metaphor as gingerbread or even as vehicle. Ditto craft. And it would be bad for students for me to teach them Plath, given my feelings, altho it might not be bad for you to do so. Like you I try to teach only poets whose work I like. There are lots of women poets who are not interested in the construction of "the woman poet." Are you talking about Adelaide Crapsey and Sara Teasdale? The woman poet being constructed is the neurasthenic and the hysteric. I think there may be better models. And for my money Plath is paradigmatic in the history of the publishing of poetry, not of poetry itself. I've always felt that pedagogical melancholy stems from the students always being the same age as I inexorably grow older. We disagree on this one. At 07:23 PM 7/6/2000 -0400, you wrote: >David Lloyd has a thought-provoking essay, "Kant's Examples" (in >Alexander Gelley's Unruly Examples: On the Rhetoric of Exemplarity) in >which he talk about the "unexpungeable melancholy of the pedagogical scene," >based as it is on the exemplarity of the teacher and the necessity to >progress past him/her. How do you, Mark, decide what would be bad, or >good, for your students? Are your students a homogeneous group, a clump? >How do you know what would be bad for them? In what sense bad? As I >would be in no way capable of deciding what poetry would be good, or bad, >for the students in my classes, I teach what I enjoy. > >In many of the courses I teach, it seems appropriate to read Plath. >Historically, she is an important figure in the tradition of American >poetry. She is a key figure in the construction of "the woman poet." >She is a highly skilled craftsperson. She was also an innovator, who >introduced many experiences particular to women into poetry. I hope >students will share my enjoyment. Like all students, I learn as I teach. >That's how I hope to minimize the unexpungeable melancholy. > >It is impossible for me to comprehend the contempt which you express for Plath. > >Mairead > >On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Mark Weiss wrote: > >> Only, Joe, if you assume that Plath would make it to industrial standing on >> quality alone. Shakespeare is a celebrity, but so are the Spice Girls. >> >> I can't think of a single poem of Plaths I'd be willing to teach--not only >> would it be bad for my students but I'd have to read it again. >> >> I realize that I've just made a tendentious statement. >> >> At 05:54 PM 7/6/2000 -0400, you wrote: >> ><<In some ways I feel the industry surrounding Plath is generated by her >> >style of writing to some degree . . . with poems of such a personal >> >nature . . .>> >> > >> >There are far greater poetic "industries" surrounding the work of >> >Wallace Stevens & Elizabeth Bishop, neither a particularly "personal" >> >poet, so there would seem to be something empirically wrong with this >> >argument. >> > >> >________________________ >> >Joseph Duemer >> >School of Liberal Arts-5750 >> >Clarkson University >> >Potsdam NY 13699 >> >[log in to unmask] >> >________________________ >> > >> >"Always come down from the barren heights >> >of cleverness into the green valleys of folly." >> > ::Wittgenstein >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%