Vanessa Thorpe in Sunday's Observer publishes "Sylvia Plath fans call for a fitting memorial to the poet." Being that two of my good friends, Gail Crowther and Elizabeth Sigmund, were quoted in the article, I have to say outright I knew it was coming. I found both of their comments very sensitive and smart.
The article was supposed to be about Elizabeth's poem "Shep-en-Mut" which appeared in Gail and Elizabeth's paper "A Poem, A Friend", recently published in Plath Profiles 3. But the article took a turn for the dramatic, as they are want to do by the editors wanting to get more hits and sell more papers. Can't fault them there, honestly. But it is a little disappointing to have had some expectation that were dashed and shattered. This is probably my own fault for foolishly being optimistic that Gail and Elizabeth's paper would receive some press, and that this might then give Plath Profiles greater visibility and awareness through an increase in readers and contributions. That being the case, I do agree with the article that Plath's grave is relatively neglected by her family and, along with Gail and many others, I can and would give money to the Church or a fund for more considerate, consistent care. And, I would also encourage those making the pilgrimage not to leave stuff (i.e. crap), however well-intentioned it may be meant to be, on the grave. In addition to the family, it is our own responsibility to care for the grave. However modest the stone may be it is a memorial, it is a tribute.
In the fourth paragraph there is a pretty bad error that I hope will be corrected. The link to a "popular Plath website" is wrong. The link should take readers to Plath Profiles but as of now it sends them to my blog. I appreciate the link and therefore by association the sentiment that my blog is popular, but it is erroneous.
As with any summary or biography of Plath that spans one or two paragraphs, brevity seriously affects accuraccy and clarity. Particularly the third to last paragraph. For any readers new to Plath, courtesy of Thorpe's article, please read the online biography on my website, A celebration, this is. And, please read Plath Profiles.
All this being the case the message of the article is one I must back. The Observer was a supporting newspaper to Plath from 1959 so it is great that they still write about her; so I appreciate the coverage. For decades now the gravesite has been a contested, sensitive issue. Fortunately the name hacking stopped and while I suppose I understand the idea or rationale behind it, it is disrespectful to Plath's memory to do so. Likewise, it is simply disrespectful of her fans and readers to leave mementos which turn, sadly, into rubbish. Take pictures, they last longer.
The article was supposed to be about Elizabeth's poem "Shep-en-Mut" which appeared in Gail and Elizabeth's paper "A Poem, A Friend", recently published in Plath Profiles 3. But the article took a turn for the dramatic, as they are want to do by the editors wanting to get more hits and sell more papers. Can't fault them there, honestly. But it is a little disappointing to have had some expectation that were dashed and shattered. This is probably my own fault for foolishly being optimistic that Gail and Elizabeth's paper would receive some press, and that this might then give Plath Profiles greater visibility and awareness through an increase in readers and contributions. That being the case, I do agree with the article that Plath's grave is relatively neglected by her family and, along with Gail and many others, I can and would give money to the Church or a fund for more considerate, consistent care. And, I would also encourage those making the pilgrimage not to leave stuff (i.e. crap), however well-intentioned it may be meant to be, on the grave. In addition to the family, it is our own responsibility to care for the grave. However modest the stone may be it is a memorial, it is a tribute.
In the fourth paragraph there is a pretty bad error that I hope will be corrected. The link to a "popular Plath website" is wrong. The link should take readers to Plath Profiles but as of now it sends them to my blog. I appreciate the link and therefore by association the sentiment that my blog is popular, but it is erroneous.
As with any summary or biography of Plath that spans one or two paragraphs, brevity seriously affects accuraccy and clarity. Particularly the third to last paragraph. For any readers new to Plath, courtesy of Thorpe's article, please read the online biography on my website, A celebration, this is. And, please read Plath Profiles.
All this being the case the message of the article is one I must back. The Observer was a supporting newspaper to Plath from 1959 so it is great that they still write about her; so I appreciate the coverage. For decades now the gravesite has been a contested, sensitive issue. Fortunately the name hacking stopped and while I suppose I understand the idea or rationale behind it, it is disrespectful to Plath's memory to do so. Likewise, it is simply disrespectful of her fans and readers to leave mementos which turn, sadly, into rubbish. Take pictures, they last longer.