As expected - probably - there has been some criticism that has sprung from the big news this week that the British Library had acquired some of Ted Hughes' papers. Heather McRobie's response "Can't we leave Hughes and Plath alone? We have their poems. We really don't need access to every corner of their lives" is one such example.
The short answer is "No". We cannot leave them alone. And it is arguable that by having access to every corner of their lives does add incredibly valuable insight to their poems. Archival materials allow for the assessment and the reassessment of the subject. Therefore, it is vital that saved materials be made available for use by the public.
There is, undeniably and unfortunately, a gossipy aspect to the story of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. The news of additional archival material being sold was picked up so widely because news about Plath and Hughes does sell papers, and will be clicked on by readers on the Internet. People are interested - and what does it matter why or in what fashion? Of course the media jumped right to the inclusion of materials relating to Ted Hughes' Birthday Letters. Having perused the finding aid available at Emory University, I often wondered if there were extent manuscripts of these poems.
The better attitude is that serious scholarship can and will - and has - benefited tremendously from these respective archives opening up for use. Every paper or book published on Plath and/or Hughes uses archival material; this is especially true of books published on these two poets in this century. Having worked with Plath's archives a good deal, I can say that in reading & researching poem drafts, short stories, early versions of The Bell Jar, as well as unpublished letters and other biographical materials - the end result is always a deeper understanding of her creative process and the product of that process. I am certain I am not alone in this. Plath scholarship has vastly improved because of this access to her papers. It enables a deeper reading and understanding of her work and her life.
The United States holds two major Plath archives, and with a massive amount of Hughes' papers (and some of Plath's too) available at Emory University, scholars are now seeing works created by Hughes during their brief lives together. Diane Middlebrook's Her Husband: Plath and Hughes - a marriage and Eilat Negev and Yehuda Korens biography of Assia Wevill, A Lover of Unreason, both owe much of their information to those papers in Atlanta. If biographical information assists in this quest for understanding the works, so be it.
Plath and Hughes have been labeled the literary couple of the 20th century. The first word of that phrase, literary, defines them more than anything else. It instructs, ultimately, that for which they are known. And, because events happened as they did, their lives, deaths, and afterlives as a result are "interesting." And because their lives are so interesting, Ms. McRobie even got to write about it! The research and interviews Kate Moses undertook to write Wintering was remarkable and extensive. Likewise, Koren and Negev's A Lover of Unreason attempts to give shape and meaning to lost lives that had, essentially, been forgotten, ignored, etc. For the record, Wintering does not just focus on the last months of Plath's life; "the Plath-word" does not guarantee financial success for the author or film-maker; and Assia Wevill was a poet - her translations of Yehuda Amichai (published in March 1969 by Harper & Row) could not have been done if didn't have poetic talents.
Perhaps Ms. McRobie will be surprised by what use the scholars make of Hughes' archive and what private details may or may not exist and come to light or stay hidden deep within the snares and hooks of Hughes' handwriting. Perhaps I might be as well. If the collection is available by the end of 2009, we still won't know for up to 14 months what is in these papers, and it will be longer still before scholars truly understand and publish what they learn. Ongoing research may get missing pieces filled in; previous research can potentially be further supported or perhaps refuted. I suspect Ted Hughes was private enough that anything he might not of want to have saved likely would not have been saved. Would Ms. McRobie prefer that librarians and archivists refuse to care for these documents because "the peanut-crunching crowd" wants an archival striptease? (As an archivist, well, nevermind...) Sometimes it is the private, biographical details than can inform and explain bits of the poetry. And I trust that most scholars will use the information they obtain in a responsible and ethical manner, no matter what form their research ultimately takes. If the output is something along the lines of what Emma Tennant or Susan Fromberg Schaeffer produced, it is easy enough to ignore it. Perhaps this biofictive micro-industry is what Ms. McRobie is really taking issue with? However, for the rest of us the materials that are now available and will become available will be crucial to the continually evolving examination of their work.
The short answer is "No". We cannot leave them alone. And it is arguable that by having access to every corner of their lives does add incredibly valuable insight to their poems. Archival materials allow for the assessment and the reassessment of the subject. Therefore, it is vital that saved materials be made available for use by the public.
There is, undeniably and unfortunately, a gossipy aspect to the story of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. The news of additional archival material being sold was picked up so widely because news about Plath and Hughes does sell papers, and will be clicked on by readers on the Internet. People are interested - and what does it matter why or in what fashion? Of course the media jumped right to the inclusion of materials relating to Ted Hughes' Birthday Letters. Having perused the finding aid available at Emory University, I often wondered if there were extent manuscripts of these poems.
The better attitude is that serious scholarship can and will - and has - benefited tremendously from these respective archives opening up for use. Every paper or book published on Plath and/or Hughes uses archival material; this is especially true of books published on these two poets in this century. Having worked with Plath's archives a good deal, I can say that in reading & researching poem drafts, short stories, early versions of The Bell Jar, as well as unpublished letters and other biographical materials - the end result is always a deeper understanding of her creative process and the product of that process. I am certain I am not alone in this. Plath scholarship has vastly improved because of this access to her papers. It enables a deeper reading and understanding of her work and her life.
The United States holds two major Plath archives, and with a massive amount of Hughes' papers (and some of Plath's too) available at Emory University, scholars are now seeing works created by Hughes during their brief lives together. Diane Middlebrook's Her Husband: Plath and Hughes - a marriage and Eilat Negev and Yehuda Korens biography of Assia Wevill, A Lover of Unreason, both owe much of their information to those papers in Atlanta. If biographical information assists in this quest for understanding the works, so be it.
Plath and Hughes have been labeled the literary couple of the 20th century. The first word of that phrase, literary, defines them more than anything else. It instructs, ultimately, that for which they are known. And, because events happened as they did, their lives, deaths, and afterlives as a result are "interesting." And because their lives are so interesting, Ms. McRobie even got to write about it! The research and interviews Kate Moses undertook to write Wintering was remarkable and extensive. Likewise, Koren and Negev's A Lover of Unreason attempts to give shape and meaning to lost lives that had, essentially, been forgotten, ignored, etc. For the record, Wintering does not just focus on the last months of Plath's life; "the Plath-word" does not guarantee financial success for the author or film-maker; and Assia Wevill was a poet - her translations of Yehuda Amichai (published in March 1969 by Harper & Row) could not have been done if didn't have poetic talents.
Perhaps Ms. McRobie will be surprised by what use the scholars make of Hughes' archive and what private details may or may not exist and come to light or stay hidden deep within the snares and hooks of Hughes' handwriting. Perhaps I might be as well. If the collection is available by the end of 2009, we still won't know for up to 14 months what is in these papers, and it will be longer still before scholars truly understand and publish what they learn. Ongoing research may get missing pieces filled in; previous research can potentially be further supported or perhaps refuted. I suspect Ted Hughes was private enough that anything he might not of want to have saved likely would not have been saved. Would Ms. McRobie prefer that librarians and archivists refuse to care for these documents because "the peanut-crunching crowd" wants an archival striptease? (As an archivist, well, nevermind...) Sometimes it is the private, biographical details than can inform and explain bits of the poetry. And I trust that most scholars will use the information they obtain in a responsible and ethical manner, no matter what form their research ultimately takes. If the output is something along the lines of what Emma Tennant or Susan Fromberg Schaeffer produced, it is easy enough to ignore it. Perhaps this biofictive micro-industry is what Ms. McRobie is really taking issue with? However, for the rest of us the materials that are now available and will become available will be crucial to the continually evolving examination of their work.