Daily Book Excerpt: Memoirs:
Next book on the Memoir/Letters/Journals shelf is The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath
I’ve written a lot about Sylvia Plath. It’s rare that you have a relationship with a writer that lasts so long. I first discovered her when I was 16. I have gone through many phases in my relationship to her writing, and in talking to others (I mean the die-hard fans) my trajectory with Plath is in line with theirs. I first got into her through The Bell Jar (my review here), her only novel, published posthumously. Largely autobiographical, it describes the events of the summer of 1953 in the life of a girl named Esther Greenwood, who eventually swallows a bottle of pills and ends up in a mental hospital. Plath had also tried to take her own life in the summer of 1953, after a prestigious internship at Ladies Home Journal. When she returned home from New York City, the abyss of the summer yawned before her, and she began to tailspin into depression and psychosis. What called to me in the book was its chilly prose, its accurate depiction of a good girl trying to shed her good girl role (one of Plath’s main problems, it was such a huge division in her it could not be bridged), and also – the mesmerizing descriptions of what depression actually feels like. How it has nothing to do with being sad. It has to do with experiencing nothing-ness, emptiness, listlessness. It wasn’t until I read it again in my 20s that I really caught onto her social critique, biting and vicious. In many ways, the book isn’t about clinical depression and suicide at all. It is about the ingrained double-standard in the culture at the time (and hell, still true now) – where boys are free, and girls are free but only with huge consequences. The sense of unfairness about that runs through the book like an electric current. Good girls don’t do such-and-such. I have written before about this in my various posts about Plath. Plath’s mother is often portrayed as the bogey-man of Plath’s life, a prudish judgmental unhappy woman who put unrealistic expectations on her intense daughter. Plath’s desire to please her mother ran so deep that it paralyzed her, infantilized her. She had to metaphorically “kill” her mother in order to be an artist, which she finally did, in the poem “Medusa”, written in the terrible (yet groundbreaking) year of 1962, months before Plath killed herself. But The Bell Jar is really an uncanny and acute criticism of the pressures put on young women to behave themselves (sexually, emotionally). Now some women would not split apart under such pressure. The character of Doreen in The Bell Jar seems to live her life the way she wants to live, and doesn’t give a hoot about the old prudes who judge her. But Esther can’t take it. And neither could Plath. She wasn’t healthy enough to withstand the pressure.
After The Bell Jar I moved onto her poems, and that’s when the obsession really kicked in. I obsessed over her Collected Poems (my review here), and I still have the copy I had back then. It is falling apart, filled with notes – which actually makes it an annoying volume. I think I need a clean copy, because my own marginalia is distracting. I went CRAZY with obsession, which lasted a good 2 years. I remember researching Sylvia Plath in my college library, not for a paper, but just for myself. I read critical studies, unsatisfactory biographies (I would only learn later, when reading Janet Malcolm’s The Silent Woman the challenges biographers faced when writing about Plath, dealing with her Byzantine estate, run by her widow Ted Hughes and his sister Olwyn Hughes), and I poured all of my amateur analysis into the poems. For a while, I saw them ONLY as autobiographical statements. Later, though, when I went back to the poetry in my late 20s, I started to see them as works of art, separate from the revealing autobiographical details. I still love reading her poems. They never fail to startle, and actually frighten.
Now about her journals. Her journals were published originally in 1982. That was the copy that I originally read. In an explosive foreword, Ted Hughes said that he had destroyed her final journals because they were too painful and too damning. There were also a lot of edits, to protect people. The original published journals were filled with suspicious ellipses. Frustrating for those of us who wanted to know more. What the hell was in those last journals? Had he really destroyed them? Also, not for nothing, but perhaps her estranged husband and widow was not the best person to be making such decisions about an important document? I understand his position, I understand why those last journals had to have been horrible to read … but with her death, Sylvia Plath became a public figure, no longer belonging only to him. Was it fair that Hughes would edit the journals, leaving out the mean things she probably said about him? The fact that Hughes even admitted that he destroyed the journals is pretty extraordinary, leading me to believe that he might have wanted to throw people off the real trail. This may be wishful thinking, I realize. But still: it was a stunning admission to make. Hughes couldn’t please anyone. By admitting that, he entered into his new role as Public Enemy #1 for the more rabid Plath fans. Now I loved her writing, but I never had a “J’Accuse Ted Hughes” feeling about him. I think the man was devastated by what had happened. He should not have been in charge of editing those journals. That was a poor choice. So, for 20-plus years, it was common knowledge that her journals were truncated, edited, to protect Ted Hughes. You could feel the edits, too. You could feel when explosive things were chopped out.
And let’s not even talk about those final “missing” journals.
Those missing journals are the Holy Grail to Plath fans. As you can see here, a brilliant international thriller written by my good friend Cara – starring me, her, and Tracey … Anyway: If you want a treat, just go read it. That pretty much sums up how we feel about the missing journals. I still hold out hope that they will turn up one day.
In 2000 came a giant “literary event” (quote from Joyce Carol Oates): an “unabridged” version of Plath’s journals were published. I cannot sufficiently describe the excitement that went off at the news. It was like a bomb detonating, the publication of the long-awaited “unedited” journals. HOWEVER: while much of the edited material had been put back in (the entries are all longer, more detailed, more in-depth) – the journal STILL did not include the last 2 years of her life (the final journals). What happens in the published version of the journals is that we get introspective diary entries up until 1961, until all of that finally stops, and then what we get is just descriptive passages, describing her neighbors. There is no introspection, no narrative, just long lists of what the neighbors were like, what their yard was like, their garden. But apparently, these were her writer’s notebooks, where she put down writerly sketches of things she might be able to use later. All of that is quite interesting, but the years 1961, 62, brought about the dissolution of Plath’s marriage to Ted Hughes (he had an affair), and she killed herself in February, 1963. Apparently, she kept a real journal right up to the end. Perhaps Hughes is to be believed, that he destroyed them. I maintain that I have my doubts. So while it was wonderful to read extended entries, (and I knew the original published version as well as I knew anything, I practically had it memorized) – those missing two years were still frustrating to a reader. It’s like Plath goes plummeting off a cliff in 1960, if you believe the journals. Everything STOPS, when actually those next two years were her most harrowing as well as her most productive.
I still hold out hopes that those journals will turn up.
In the meantime, though, for those only familiar with the original edited version of the journals published in the 80s, this “unabridged” version has a wealth of new material. You get a fuller picture of Plath, definitely, because she is allowed to follow her own train of thought, without all of those pesky ellipses reminding us that she was being edited (silenced) from beyond the grave.
Whatever the case, the journals are riveting reading. She was precocious, self-conscious, sentimental, and obviously had a writer’s bug. She is creating “narratives” of her own experience from the get-go. A simple date becomes a metaphorical experience of something much larger. A moonrise is dwelled upon and elaborated upon, Plath going off the deep end into romantic descriptions. She is flexing her muscles. That’s what she used her journal for (or, one of the reasons). I look at my own journal entries from when I was a teenager (Ahem), and while I had a similar NEED to write down my own life as though it were a story (something that continues to this day), I certainly don’t sound like SHE did.
For example, the extraordinary entry below (this was highly edited in the original published version of the journals). Here, Plath is 18 years old. It’s kind of long, and all one paragraph, so it may be difficult to read, but I recommend taking the time to get through it. Her analysis of the pressures on her, the influences on her, and also the “writerly” second-person narrator device she chooses – shows her to be a writer in training. It’s self-conscious, sometimes annoyingly so, but hey, she was 18. She was trying to work things out. She is writing her life like it is a story, distancing herself from it – not only by writing it down, but also by choosing the “you” narrator. It’s also amazing how aware she is, not only of what was happening in her life personally, but about the societal pressures that seemed to be shaping her against her will.
She totally knew everything that was happening to her. She diagnosed the situation: lack of a father, unhealthily close relationship to mother, desire for male attention, and yet – in the 1950s world – terrified of what that would mean. Ambition, desire, need … all struggling to express itself in a way that would not topple her delicate house of cards.
18 years old? Get outta here!
Excerpt from The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath
June 15, 1951
The rain comes down again, on the indecently big green leaves, and there is the wet hiss of drops splashing and puckering the flat veined vegetable surfaces. Although the rain is neutral, although the rain is impersonal, it becomes for me a haunting and nostalgic sound. The still air of the house smells of warm stagnant human flesh and of onions, and I sit, back to the radiator, the metal ribs of it pressing against my shoulders. I am in my old room once more, for a little, and I am caught in musing — how life is a swift motion, a continuous flowing, changing, and how one is always saying goodbye and going places, seeing people, doing things. Only in the rain, sometimes, only when the rain comes, closing in your pitifully small radius of activity, only when you sit and listen by the window, as the cold wet air blows thinly by the back of your neck – only then do you think and feel sick. You feel the days slipping by, elusive as slippery pink worms, through your fingers, and you wonder what you have for your eighteen years, and you think about how, with difficulty and concentration, you could bring back a day, a day of sun, blue skies and watercoloring by the sea. You could remember the sensual observations that made that day reality, and you could delude yourself into thinking – almost – that you could return to the past, and relive the days and hours in a quick space of time. But no, the quest of time past is more difficult than you think, and time present is eaten up by such plaintive searchings. The film of your days and nights is wound up tight in you, never to be re-run – and the occasional flashbacks are faint, blurred, unreal, as if seen through falling snow. Now, you begin to get scared. You don’t believe in God, or a life-after-death, so you can’t hope for sugar plums when your non-existent soul rises. You believe that whatever there is has got to come from man, and man is pretty creative in his good moments – pretty mature, pretty perceptive for his age – how many years is it, now? How many thousands? Yet, yet in this era of specialization, of infinite variety and complexity and myriad choices, what do you pick for yourself out of the grab-bag? Cats have nine lives, the saying goes. You have one; and somewhere along the thin, tenuous thread of your existence there is the black knot, the blood clot, the stopped heartbeat that spells the end of this particular individual which is spelled “I” and “You” and “Sylvia”. So you wonder how to act, and how to be – and you wonder about values and attitudes. In the relativism and despair, in the waiting for the bombs to begin, for the blood (now spurting in Korea, in Germany, in Russia) to flow and trickle before your own eyes, you wonder with a quick sick fear how to cling to earth, to the seeds of grass and life. You wonder about your eighteen years, ricocheting between a stubborn determination that you’ve done well for your own capabilities and opportunities … that you’re competing now with girls from all over America, and not just from the hometown: and a fear that you haven’t done well enough – You wonder if you’ve got what it takes to keep building up obstacle courses for your self, and to keep leaping through them, sprained ankle or not. Again the refrain, what have you for your eighteen years? And you know that whatever tangible things you do have, they cannot be held, but, too, will decompose and slip away through your coarse-skinned and death-rigid fingers. So you will rot in the ground, and so you say, what the hell? Who cares? But you care, and somehow you don’t want to live just one life, which could be typed, which could be tossed off in a thumbnail sketch = “She was the sort of girl ….” And end in 25 words or less. You want to live as many lives as you can … you’re a capitalist from way back … and because you’re eighteen, because you’re still vulnerable, because you still don’t have faith in yourself, you talk a little fliply, a little too wisely, just to cover up so you won’t be accused of sentimentality or emotionalism or feminine tactics. You cover up, so you can still laugh at yourself while there’s time. And then you thin of the flesh-and-blood people you know, and wonder guiltily where all this great little flood of confidence is getting you. (That’s the pragmatic approach — where are you getting? what are you getting? Measure your precepts and their values by the tangible good you derive from their use.) Take the grandparents, now. What do you know about them? Sure, they were born in Austria, they say “cholly” for “jolly” and “ven” for “when”. Grampy is white-haired, terribly even-tempered, terribly old, terribly endearing in his mute and blind admiration of everything you do. (You take a bitter and rather self-righteous pride in the fact that he’s a steward at a Country Club.) Grammy is spry, with a big fat bosom and spindly arthritic legs. She cooks good sour cream sauce and makes up her own recipes. She slurps her soup, and drops particles of food from her plate down the front of her dresses. She is getting hard of hearing, and her hair is just beginning to turn gray. There is your dead father who is somewhere in you, interwoven in the cellular system of your long body which sprouted from one of his sperm cells uniting with an egg cell in your mother’s uterus. You remember that you were his favorite when you were little, and you used to make up dances to do for him as he lay on the living room couch after supper. You wonder if the absence of an older man in the house has anything to do with your intense craving for male company and the delight in the restful low sound of a group of boys, talking and laughing. You wish you had been made to know Botany, Zoology and Science when you were young. But with your father dead, you leaned abnormally to the “Humanities” personality of your mother. And you were frightened when you heard yourself stop talking and felt the echo of her voice, as if she had spoken in you, as if you weren’t quite you, but were growing and continuing in her wake, and as if her expressions were growing and emanating from your face. (Here upon you ponder, and wonder if that’s what happens to older people when they die contented — that they feel they have somehow transcended the wall of flesh which is crumbling fatally and forever around them and that their fire and protoplasm and pulse have leapt over bounds and will live on in off spring, continuing the chain of life … ) Then there is your brother – 6 feet four inches tall, lovable and intelligent. You fought with him when you were little, threw tin soldiers at his head, gouged his neck with a careless flick of your iceskate … and then last summer, as you worked on the farm, you grew to love him, confide in him, and know him as a person … and you remember the white look of fear about his mouth that day they had all planned to throw you in the wash tub – and how he rallied to your defense. Yes, you can outline the people you’ve lived with these eighteen years in a few sentences … yet could you give an account of their lives, their hopes, their dreams? You could try, perhaps, but they would be much the same as yours … for you are all an inexplicable unity – this family group with its twisted tensions, unreasoning loves and solidarity and loyalty born and bred in blood. These people are the ones most basically responsible for what you are. Then there are the teachers – Miss Norris, the principle of grammar school; Miss Raguse, the tall, hideous 7th grade English teacher who loved poetry, and read it aloud to the class, even to the little boys destined to be garage mechanics; Mr. Crockett, the man through high school who fostered your intellectual life, along with that of your circle of classmates who took the three year advanced English course; Mrs. Koffka, this year at Smith, who took up the torch and made you want to know, to think, to learn, to beat your head out against the knowledge of centuries. And there are the girls, who have come singly in a strange continuity to grow more and more intensely, to meet your growth, from the summers of camping and fern-hut building with Betsy Powley, to the tennis and talks with Mary Ventura and the pretty black-haired wit of Ruth Geisel, to the sweet sentiment of Patsy O’Neil, to the synthesis of these in Marcia. And the boys, from Jimmy Beal, who drew you pictures of pretty girls in fifth grade, and rollerskated along the beach and planned to get married in a little white house with roses on a picket fence – (you remember, absurdly now, how his little sister was drowned on the beaches while walking on ice cakes, and how you didn’t know just how to react to his white, drawn face when you saw him back at school. You wanted to say nice things and how sorry you were, and then you felt a sudden hardening and strange anger at him for his weakness which intensified yours. So you stuck out your tongue at him and made a face. And you never played with him again.) There was tall gawky John Stenberg who printed “Sylvia loves John” on his printing press and scattered little slips of paper all over the streets and in every desk at school. Mortified, yet secretly excited by such attention, you scorned his gifts of a rabbit’s foot and a date to the carnival. (Later years would have found you infinitely grateful for any of his attentions whatever.) A blank of several awkward and ungainly and ugly adolescent years ended suddenly with a brief mental infatuation, and then a slow awakening of physical relationships with boys, from the first time, at the traditional age of sixteen, that you found that a kiss was not as distasteful as once imagined. And so you could list the thirty or forty boys you’ve gone out with in the last two years of your dating existence – and append a brief, if not astringent, note of gratitude to each one for an increased education in conversation, confidence and — so on. Till now you comb your hair with practiced casualness and go downstairs to greet the man of the hour with a careless sparkle in your eyes born of years of “faux pas” and blunders. Gone are the days where a date began in the afternoon, with an agony of nervousness prickling the back of the neck, making hands slippery and cold with sweat – sicking nausea that wouldn’t let you eat supper – or do anything besides wait tensely, ready for at least half an hour before the boys came, and able only to check and re-check for slip-showing or hair-uncurled. And you look now at your reflection on the window and smile – for all your fat nose, you’re quite a presentable long and lithe piece of tan flesh. And your mirth congeals on your full mouth as you think of yourself growing used to your reflection after year on year of mirror-glimpses. If you had a wen on either cheek, you’d get used to that, too. And the rain is still coming down, and it is getting later and later … and you aren’t the sort of human being that can write till four in the morning and stay whole, so you trail off …




Nobody – NOBODY – writes about Sylvia better than you. I just eat these posts up with a spoon. I love her and I love you for posting this.
Thanks, girl!!
I mean, reading that one particular entry is like wading in a deep deep pool … I could read it 20 times and still see something new. Look at how she’s picking apart her own life – almost clinically – with that “you” narrator. She totally understood what was working her. The comment about her mother is so chilly, isn’t it – so cold-eyed. She totally saw how the lack of a father had made her take on her mother’s personality too much – until she feels like when she opens her mouth, it is her mother speaking. She’s only 18 years old and she’s realizing this.
Really amazing. I struggled over which entry to excerpt. I love the one about her getting furious at the girls hacking up the rhododendrons, too – It’s even better than the poem she eventually wrote about that experience. Her rage just shatters the page.
Love that I can share the Plath obsession with you!
How about her saying, “you’re a capitalist from way back”??
Yes, that “capitalist” sentence is just so random, so … weird. I frankly don’t get it. What do you think she meant?
The whole thing though is just fresh as Spring’s first rain. You don’t hear voices like that anymore.
It leaves a chill down my back. God how glorious she was. How utterly impossibly glorious.
You’re right – it’s such a specific voice, even in her teenaged journal.
What I THINK she’s getting at with the capitalist joke is that she is unembarrassed about wanting more, more, more – about being greedy for experience, hungry to experience all that she can.
Ahhh. That makes sense. Yes, I that fits perfectly; I just didn’t see it. I was writing a big post on my Enron blog about poverty (I took lots of pictures – check it out and tell me if I’m being a douchebag for writing it) so I guess I just didn’t look far enough into it.
My birthday is Wednesday. I am reading “Birthday Letters.” Just plain wow.
Oh, that’s right – your birthday! Birthday Letters just kills me – it’s been a while since I’ve read the thing cover to cover. It really is shattering when you read it front to back.
Also, methinks Sylvia may not have known what “capitalism” means and just was using the word to sound grandiose and cynical. It does stand out, doesn’t it? It actually sounds like a line that could fit into one of her final poems.
It sounds like when I was searching for a thought once I wrote, “I hate him because he has no checks and balances.”
Um… what? It was just the first thing semi-intelligent thing that popped into my mind that I could grab onto. However, I think you had it right. She thinks of herself as greedy, so she views herself in that way as a capitalist.
Birthday Letters is heartbreaking.
Incidentally I was thinking about Sylvia’s symbology (she loved “eyes” “red” “nazis”, etc) and I was wondering if I have any like that. Birthdays are generally a landmark for everyone but I think for me, they’re big talismans. I always sort of gravitate toward her during early June. : )
I know birthdays are very powerful for you – almost like a dark magic. I’m trying to think of your writing and wondering the same thing. You use “ice” a lot in your imagery – or cold glitters – I can’t think of an example right now – but your writing has a light to it – not a warm light, perhaps, although your writing can be the warmest thing imaginable, but your imagery is the cold glitter of ice. Recently, you referenced Sean’s “radiant grief” and I meant to comment on that, on what a startling image it was – but I thought it might not be appropriate in that context. But to me, the images of yours that really stand out have to do with light – a cold glittery light- which somehow, in its intensity, becomes an unbearable heat.
Does that make any sense?
I don’t want to make it seem like your writing is “cold” – I feel just the opposite. I’m just talking about the imagery. There’s a sharpness to it- jagged edges, splinters … Very distinctive.
Oooh this is very, very helpful – perhaps one of the most useful notes on my writing I’ve received in years. Thank you for noticing this and sharing it – I will have to think about this some more but it feels right.
Yours “feels” like velvet. I’m not sure what I mean by that but when you write about something that happened in college or a boy, I feel like I am sinking into the experience with you, smoothly, warmly, plushly. You know the details to add – and I’ve often wondered how you know exactly what to say to get the maximum emotional result even when you’re not talking about emotions. I don’t know if I’m messing this up, I’m just sort of writing on the fly.
You have a very strong sense of place, whether it is New York, that island whose name I’m forgetting right now…. Rock Island? No… the cold one, where you took all those amazing pictures of the stormy green sea. Or Chicago. You just NAIL places.
I love your writing – don’t ever stop. : )
Incidentally there was something “radiant” about Sean’s grief. He practically glowed. I theorized it was an evolutionary tool to bring people closer, to get comfort from people when he was so utterly alone.
He says this is BS though because he wanted nothing more than to be left alone. So whatevs.
Sheila,
I remember a girl I knew had read her book. Knowing only the worst of Plath, her suicide by depression, I would tease her every time she expressed the least bit of sighing sadness over something or other…“don’t go Sylvia Plath on me”.
Reading the excerpt, finally, near the end…”And your mirth congeals on your full mouth as you think… ”. Oh thank god, the girl has actually felt mirth. Half jesting, I ask, should girls be reading Ms. Plath?
I’m assuming some periods of her life were filled with some sort of happiness. Had she ever written anything suggesting she’d put that great introspection of hers to such periods? That picture of her, I wonder… happy or smiling for the camera?
That was during a camping/fishing trip she took with her new husband – so yeah, I’m assuming that was a happy smile. She loved her husband, loved her kids, and loved her work.
The pressure she felt to show “mirth” is one of her most devastating critiques of society – that women should be smiling and nice and jolly and unconfrontational – and when she finally decided to stop playing nice is when she found her voice as an artist. I found that message deeply empowering as a young girl, where the pressure to be “nice” is sometimes overwhelming. Plath called bullshit on the double-standard, and that was something I, as a young girl, really took to heart – and still do. Yes, she committed suicide. Lots of people have. Her work lasts, however, separate from that biographical detail.
// should girls be reading Ms. Plath? //
Of course! She’s an incredible writer – her poetry is some of the most powerful writing I have ever read. A deeply talented artist.
You should check out her poems sometime if all you know about her is that she committed suicide.
Cara – I believe you when you say his grief was radiant. You have a way of putting words together in a startling way that don’t seem, on the face of it, like they would go together – but on deeper reflection, it feels just right. “Radiant grief” is a startling phrase and really makes an impact.
And thank you for your observations about my writing. It reminds me I need to get back to the grindstone. I’ve got plans in my head – writing plans – and I’ve got to stop thinking about them, and DO them!!
There is a passage early on in the journals, before even the one you quote I think, when in prose Plath describes looking out of her window at Amherst while describing the scene and reflecting on a date she has had and the passing of time. The passage is quite repetitive but you can feel that she is working up the imagery and the thought that she will use in the poem that follows. Dripping water and the wipers on her date’s car are the stuff of a thousand cliches of time passing, but then Plath does this at the beginning of the poem:
Click-click: tick-tick
Clock snips time in two
Lap of rain
In the drain pipe
Two o’clock
And never you.
The change in gear between the voice of an apprentice writer working through some ideas on time and love, and the cold spare voice of the poet is something that, I think, can never be taught to any writer. It is talent pure and simple. Plath’s journals are intense and fascinating, but the voice of the journals is not the voice of the Ariel poet, an echo of which you can hear in the above extract (“Two o’clock/and never you.”).
Whatever may be in the “lost” journals, at the time she was writing those, and “Edge”, and “Lady Lazarus”, she was also writing the optimistic “You’re” and “Wintering”. Her state of mind in those last months must have been much more complex than either side in the “Hughes = evil” debate will readily acknowledge.
I agree with Cara (whose Plath whodunit is brilliant), your writing on Plath is delicious and alive to the subtlties of the subject.
Thanks for this. I also like your writings on Plath very much.
I used to absolutely love these journals. Even the abridged ones, with all their annoying ellipses, let me into Sylvia’s world more than anything else could. I still like dipping. BUT I have one big problem with SP’s journal : how very beautifully they are written, as in the entry above. Even when SP is writing about anguish, she never appears to cross anything out, or express herself ungrammatically, or mix her metaphors.
I read somewhere (and I wish I could remember where this was) that she actually wrote out each entry on a loose sheet of paper, then checked it for errors and only then, when it was “perfect,” did she copy it out very neatly, very painstakingly, into her proper journal. If that is so (and it seems likely) it shows how very anxious about perfection she was. And, as you have mentioned before very fairly, this was largely due to her mother, who was so terribly demanding throughout SP’s life. . .and never, ever satisfied. Such parents have a lot to answer for.
Panther – I had not heard that about her different drafts of her journal. It makes sense, seeing as how they do read so beautifully, the prose flows. I know that Lucy Maud Montgomery (another writer I love) rewrote every single one of her journals before she died – typing them out in manuscript form, where she basically went back and edited her younger self. So the published versions of her journal are those typewritten manuscripts. LMM was very concerned about privacy, and she was far more famous when she was alive than Plath ever was – but I often wonder what the “raw” journals were like.
Thanks for the comment.
Paul – wow, you have an excellent memory, I know just what journal entry you are talking about. I love the early journals – the high school/college years – ripe with descriptive passages, sensory details – overwhelmingly self-conscious – maybe arch, even – but I love it because it shows that she was apprenticing herself. Your analysis of how her experience then became a poem is one of my ongoing obsessions with all of this personal information (her journals, her letters): you can see her working on something in a journal, or letter – and since the Collected Poems is so damn good with the timeline (thank you, ted Hughes) we can track all of the final drafts of these poems. I love comparing/contrasting: because then you can see how she turned the raw material of her life into a poem.
And I agree with your comment about her more optimistic poems in those last months. I know that her original ordering of the Ariel poems were specifically designed to give the reader hope – but when she died, Ted Hughes ignored her preferred order (something she was very specific about) and instead had the poems published in chronologlical order, which gives them a very different and more fatalistic march-to-the-grave feel. Again, I can understand why he did that – but I don’t think it was the best choice.
I love his work as well, and I’ve written about him quite a bit too – to say he was “unfairly maligned” is putting it lightly. When Plath fans would deface her grave, and other evil nonsense like that. I don’t think he deserved one bit of the vicious attacks he withstood in silence over DECADES. So the man had an affair. Who cares. And let’s not even mention the tragedy of Assia/Shura. He had to have been out of his mind during those years. And the attacks were relentless – and he never defended himself. Pretty courageous, I think.
A fascinating couple.
Yeah, when two poets of such intensity came together, it was always going to be trouble.
I love Hughes’s poetry (and as far as we know, he’s no relation, mores the pity). I would like to ask those who vilify him just how they would have coped in the same circumstances. How would they live with themselves after two of their lovers commit suicide? The second Mrs Hughes must have been a remarkable woman to cope with that history.
You said a couple of days ago that you longed for violence. Go and reread Hughes’s February 17 – one of the most violent poems ever written, but starkly beautiful.
Have you read Hughes’ collected letters yet? It’s such a dauntingly huge volume but I really MUST read it. It’s incredible that he was able to keep on working after that dark dark decade.
I LOVE his stuff, but I don’t think I know February 17. Will check it out.
I am always reading them. Good job I got the hardback. You will love them, densely packed full of poet-y goodness.
Oh man, thanks for the push. Going on vacation in July – maybe that’s the book I’ll bring (always an important consideration for any vacation). He’s a fascinating man.
Yes, a lot of what she writes in the Journals IS beautiful, very polished,beautiful imagery, etc. . .but I’m not sure that journals should really be about that. A journal is, for me, more about the self jotting stuff down, allowing the self to be messy, all over the place, just as life is. SP’s journals feel very professional. . .and very, evry anxious. I’m not criticising her. She was passionate about becoming a good writer, and she was also dealing with lots of painful stuff, and jeez, just doing the best she could with the cards she had been handed. Her perfectionism is a part of her. I just feel for HER sake, really, that she could have let up a bit more. . .and stuff her mother and all the other people who appeared to demand the impossible !
Ted Hughes’ letters are fascinating. He was such a rich person. Sometimes you feel “This is pretty left-field ” (when he gets deeply into astrology, for example, or advises the very-sick-and-almost-dead-with-cancer Philip Larkin to consult a faith healer) but that was Ted Hughes, a very complex person. Some of these letters show how encouraging he was towards younger writers, not at all patronizing, just giving them (in a rather modest way) the benefit of his insights. I think he must have been fascinating to work with.
Panther –
// SP’s journals feel very professional. . .and very, evry anxious. //
That’s a very good observation. I sense that myself. Man, girl really was a perfectionist, wasn’t she?