 |
 |
An little extra macabre detail, related to Plath's drive of accomplishing what one could dare to describe as "the beautiful death": in the afternoon , she managed to have her long, brown hair curled up. And so, in her doll-like posture and style, she was found, next day. Sonia ----- Original Message ----- From: Sonia Lipenolch <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Cc: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 1:52 AM Subject: Re: Plath again finally > Plath lies silenced in her own bare grave in Ebden Bridge. > Her story has become a myth, and rightly so. > She was an extraordinarily talented woman and poet, beautiful and desperate. > None would commit suicide for a mare performance, (See Plath's claims of > artistic suicidal drive, in "Daddy". ) > No, one does not do it for attention seeking. The attention seeker just > pretend to do it. She finally killed herself. > One must know what one is doing, when death is so close. > Totally irrelevant are the suppositions according to which she was hoping to > be rescued "on the threshold of death" by > her baby-sitter. > A suicidal person has as her only aim to lay bare and appeased in her own > silence. > She new it well. > That is why you keep talking about her. It is the force of it which scares > and attract us all. > > Sonia Lipenolch (from cold Poland) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: Plath again finally > > > > > > Dear Andrew, > > > > I question the concept of the "industry" surrounding Plath. Do you mean > > the publication history of the poems? If there is another industry, the > > question to ask is who's profiting from it. Who's profiting from it? > > Not Plath. > > > > What are the "certain famous occasions" on which "Plath used poetry as a > > means of personal revenge or a means of self-justification. Very much > > like a weapon." These occasions are not famous to me. Tell me > > (back-channel). > > > > You begin your post in the hope that you will not generalise but you do, > > hopelessly, in your claim that "fans" or non-fans of Plath tend to be so > > because of their response to her "character." Sure what's the point of > > conducting a poetry discussion on that basis? What's with the "fans," > > anyway? Are there a lot of Shakespeare fans out there too? When you say > > "Those who are not fans tend not to be so for the same reasons -- > > resenting the high-level personal intrusions into the verse," you seem to > > present the possibility that the verse pre-exists the intrusions. How > > can this be? Do you mean that Sylvia Plath wrote perfectly good poems > > and then proceeded to intrude on them in a high-level and personal way? > > Bloody cheek! She was tampering with her own poems, the ones left in her > > care, I mean it wouldn't be so bad if she was making low-level personal > > intrusions on them, but high-level .... those poems should be put into > > care (and they were). > > > > Elizabeth Bishop, whom you compare favorably to Plath as a woman who did > > not make high-level personal intrusions on verse, presumably, is a very > > different case. She had a relatively long career, as opposed to Plath's, > > which only had a beginning. Bishop also conformed far more readily to > > the range allowed the woman writing poetry: she was single and had no > > children. She also refrained from writing about her sexuality (which, > > like any expression of female sexuality in poetry, was taboo). > > > > Robert Lowell is pertinent to the discussion only if it is confined to > > the narrow terms which I reject. > > > > Your distinction between Hill's "under-cutting" and Plath's > > "self-laceration" needs further elaboration. > > > > I don't know why you see Plath only in terms of her poems about death, > > which are not even very interesting. Her poems on pregnancy and birth > > far outnumber her poems on death. They are by and large joyful and > > celebratory. Moreover, Plath is the first poet in the English language, > > to my knowledge, to produce a sustained body of work which directly > > expresses the experiences of pregnancy and childbirth. Canonically, she > is > > without doubt a major poet. > > > > You object to Plath's poem "Thalidomide" on the grounds that the subject > > is not approached for itself "but only as a framework around which > > Plath could hang her excessively Gothic imagination." Why do you make > > this claim? Plath made pregnancy and childbirth her subject matter > > during the last 5 years of her life, at a time when she herself was > > pregnant much of the time, and at a time when the thalidomide disaster > > must surely have preoccupied very many women. Why is her decision to > > write a poem about this "wearisome?" > > > > I am interested in your connection between Mary Shelley and Plath. I > > think there are salient differences but it's a fruitful comparison. > > Frankenstein is definitely a story about procreation and creation, > > as are the bulk of Plath's poems. There are other useful connections > > which I won't go into now. > > > > Thank you for the discussion. For anyone that's read this far, thank you. > > > > Mairead > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%