The correspondence of Sylvia Plath is now being published, foreworded (if
that’s the word) by Frieda Hughes. Hughes notes:
“The reason my mother should be of interest to readers at all is due to my
father, because, irrespective of the way their marriage ended, he honoured my
mother’s work and her memory by publishing ‘Ariel.’ … It seems to me that, as a
result of their profound belief in each other’s literary abilities, my parents
are as married in death as they once were in life.”
I find “the reason” – i.e. the expression Hughes uses – to be a bit strong. But
perhaps its strength is weakened by the “should” that follows?
L. Helm was referring recently to Empson’s idea that it is up to the ‘utterer’
(or poet, specifically) to find responsibility in his/her utterances. And one
can imagine that SOME readers to Plath’s poems may have OTHER _reasons_ to find
Plath of interest?
Hughes seems to be implying (mmm) that the _only_ reason why readers should
find Plath of interest is the ‘Ariel.’ But is it? I can imagine a reader who
finds Plath of interest because Paltrow portrays her in a film! (With Daniel
Craig playing Frieda’s father).
While I conjoin both utterances by Hughes here, it should be pointed out that
the second utterance, about Plath’s and her husband’s “profound belief in each
other’s literary abilities,” connects, but may be considered as independent
from the prior utterance about what the reason is why readers should find Plath
of interest. Or not.
Cheers,
Speranza
