Hi, Camille, First let me say that when I state that I am in high umbrage, I want you to know that I'm sayinng this in good humour. I have noticed a few touchy people here, well, everyone has their touchy points, I guess. Anyway, I'm not one of the overly-sensitive types, no backpedalling required. I have taken note of your postings, however, and thought that Plath would be a good point for me to take a stand. Yes, you're right, no matter how big & expensive my house is in SylviaPlathLand, I must admit that The Bell Jar is in the lower rent district. Still, there are some interesting people that live on the wrong side of the tracks. I'll be the first to admit that, though her poetry is like a bleeding angel, her prose is a bit lacking stylisticly. However, the point, I thought, needed to be made that the content of a book can be, and in this case truly is, far better that the actual words used to tell the story. I'm rambling now because I've just finished Catcher yesterday. Although I read it years ago, this is the first time I've been able to really read it. Also, I'm sure you know, I'm in Will's class, and today, we went over some really terbulennt stuff that still has my stomach all knotted up. It's kind of strange, but in class sometimes, and most especially today, I felt so vulnerable, so moved, and it's almost oscene for Salinger to do that to me in public. Posting here is much safer. I'll close now, though I want to post so much more. After today's class I just want to curl up with a blanket and a hot cup of cocoa. Will introduced me to SaligerLand both in class and online. Thanks, Will. Namaste, Thor > OK, Camille, > > I'm in high umbrage and feel that I must take issue with you on several > points. You see, I built a very large house in SylviaPlathLand and live > there frequently. > First, Bell Jar is in No Way a "female catcher". Oh, don't worry - I in NO WAY made or could see this analogy - it's just something I read somewhere. This is the sort of analogy people make so librarians can know which books they should nestle together on the Paperback stand. I was curious to read it to see whether this analogy stood up, and I definitely thought it didn't at all. > Secondly, although like Salinger, Plath drew upon her experiences with > being committed, etc., Bell Jar is, ultimately a work of fiction. Plath > herself was the first to stand up and say that the cruel, controlling > mother that she wrote about was not her mother, who she was very close > to. Yes, there is insight into Plath in that book, but careful how far > you take that. > Lastly, "mediocre"? Well, no accounting for taste, I suppose. I will > grant you that her writing style was not the best that I've read. I think Plath is a very fine poet. But a fine poet does not a novelist make. Phillip Larkin wanted to be a novelist, but *his* novel was mediocre. TS Eliot wrote some of the world's best poetry but some of the world's most mannered and inscrutable theatre. The point I was making was about the point to which a writer should or does use their own life, and the division between autobiography and utilisation. I think Plath stepped over the line into autobiography - she was simply putting her own thoughts into the mouth of a representative character - whereas Salinger seems to use his own experiences in a manner more akin to sculpture than assemblage. I was expecting to enjoy the book, too. I put it down to experience, but I think Plath was a far better poet than novelist. No umbrage should be taken! I'm sure you're not keen on some of my favourite reading material too (: Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com