I've been having trouble organizing my thoughts and reactions to Plath, so here's a list in no particular order of some things that I wondered while reading Ariel. To all you Plathers: please understand that I respect Plath as a poet, that my rating reflects my limited perception of her work, and that I'm well aware of the subjectivity of taste. However...
1. What exactly is so great about Sylvia Plath? I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean what are Sylvia Plath's literary innovations, her credentials for being referred to as great? Formal invention? Subject matter? What is it? Ezra Pound is great because he initiated a literary paradigm shift from stodgy Victorian poetry to something fresh and exciting and new. Chaucer is great because of his uncanny command of Middle English and his diverse influence on other great writers (Pound himself being one of them). How did Plath make poetry new? More importantly: did she? I don't see much in terms of traditional forms in the book (sonnets, sestinas, and the like), and much of the book is —or appears to be— free verse. However, I think there are other poets who can write much better free verse than Plath (Pound, H.D., Eliot, Ashbery, Jarrell, and the like). So, in terms of craft, how is Plath great? Why should we read her?
2. Many people, but especially Americans like myself, have an obsession with the role of the Artist Martyr, a young soul full of tortured creativity who dies a tragic death, leaving us wondering what works they might have produced had they lived longer (looking at you, Jimi). To me, Plath's psychological problems and her untimely, disturbing death has shrouded her work in a sort of perceived mystery and haunting power. Or rather I should say that Plath fans have intentionally shrouded her work with such a facade. Quite frankly, I don't get it. What if Plath had lived a long, healthy life? Would this influence the way we read her work? Should it?
3. I keep hearing that one shouldn't write about love or death. This is ridiculous. I think one can write about either, so long as the writing is excellent, original, innovative in some capacity. Plath writes frequently about death, but does so in a way that I found unforgettably boring, which is quite ironic considering the realities of her life. Her work on death sometimes borders a juvenile obsession, like a teenager first coming to grips with her own mortality, but having little of substance to say about the whole experience.
4. Plath's work seemed to me more cerebral than aortic, more about the mind and its strangeness than anything else of human experience. That's fine. And perhaps this explains some of her style. Is she deliberately trying to disorient the reader, to use her art to imitate psychological instability? I like this idea. I like it because it provides some validation of her form, her voice, her unusual juxtaposition of images. But why then, when finishing each and every poem, did I feel nothing, think nothing, save for a vague suspicion that I had just wasted a bunch of time? Perhaps I'm just uncultured and uninitiated?
5. When I read something that resonates with me, it resonates with me because I learned something, and not just about the story or the characters or the craft of writing. All that's great. But it resonated with me because I learned something about myself. When I finished this book, I spent a few days mulling it over. I realized I had learned nothing, taken nothing away from Plath's work that informed my perception of myself or others, didn't provoke new ideas or explore emotional depths. The whole experience felt flat and lifeless, disconnected, incoherent and, I admit, rather irritating.