Back in January I mentioned that Carmela Ciuraru's Nom de Plume: A (Secret) History of Pseudonyms (ISBN: 9780061735264) was to be published in June. It was and now suddenly it is August.
Nom de Plume: A (Secret) History of Pseudonyms "includes a series of brief biographical explorations of the secretive writers behind some of history's most famous and enduring pseudonyms."
The chapter on Plath covers pages 180-193. Each chapter features a quirky kind of teaser in a decorative font, Plath's being "She found sexual satisfaction in picking her nose" (180). What this has to do with her pseudonym is beyond me and kind of made me nervous to read the chapter! So too did the use of the familial "Sylvia" in the text and generalizing statements like "Plath's biography is familiar to just about every English literature student, reader of contemporary poetry, and suicidal teenager" (182). Adding to my apprehension was a sentence that kind of make no sense: "She was toxic because she was so seductive, and seductive because she was so toxic" (182). WTFDTEM? (What the f--- does that even mean)
The material dealing with the pseudonym and The Bell Jar is almost minimal. And as for it being "a (secret) history" of Plath's pseudonym: non-existent. On the whole I suppose it is a passable review of Plath's life and some of the real events portrayed fictionally in the novel. However, there was not any new information for me (and yes, I did expect something). Was Plath secretive about her novel? Maybe kind of, but not really. She refers to the novel in several letters home and in correspondence to friends. The award of a Saxton grant to write the novel appeared in newspapers such as the New York Times (21 Nov 1961) and Boston Globe (17 December 1961). She is elusive about the subject of the novel, yes. She published under a pseudonym, yes. She was dismissive of it, calling it a pot-boiler; but Plath was generally dismissive about any of her writing more then a few months old. But she is not technically secretive. Maybe it is a questions of semantics...
But what I did expect from Ciuraru's chapter on Plath was something critical, illuminating, and sharp. Something interesting! Something that would be a revelation: a secret uncovered. Instead, chronology was often disregarded: "...as her children lay sleeping, she sealed off the door to their bedroom with wet towels and opened their window wide" (190). And, there was just enough:
cliche: "She was living in a dreary London flat" (189);
hyperbole: "There was no telephone and electricity was intermittent" (189) & "As usual, Aurelia made everything about her..." (192), and;
bad metaphor: "'The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt,' Plath was once wrote, but when it did creep in, she pounded it like a Whac-a-Mole..." (184)
to make the chapter forgettable.
I am adding this book to a growing number of titles that will appear in the soon-to-be-released arcade game "Whac-a-Plath-Book-That-Sucks."
Nom de Plume: A (Secret) History of Pseudonyms "includes a series of brief biographical explorations of the secretive writers behind some of history's most famous and enduring pseudonyms."
The chapter on Plath covers pages 180-193. Each chapter features a quirky kind of teaser in a decorative font, Plath's being "She found sexual satisfaction in picking her nose" (180). What this has to do with her pseudonym is beyond me and kind of made me nervous to read the chapter! So too did the use of the familial "Sylvia" in the text and generalizing statements like "Plath's biography is familiar to just about every English literature student, reader of contemporary poetry, and suicidal teenager" (182). Adding to my apprehension was a sentence that kind of make no sense: "She was toxic because she was so seductive, and seductive because she was so toxic" (182). WTFDTEM? (What the f--- does that even mean)
The material dealing with the pseudonym and The Bell Jar is almost minimal. And as for it being "a (secret) history" of Plath's pseudonym: non-existent. On the whole I suppose it is a passable review of Plath's life and some of the real events portrayed fictionally in the novel. However, there was not any new information for me (and yes, I did expect something). Was Plath secretive about her novel? Maybe kind of, but not really. She refers to the novel in several letters home and in correspondence to friends. The award of a Saxton grant to write the novel appeared in newspapers such as the New York Times (21 Nov 1961) and Boston Globe (17 December 1961). She is elusive about the subject of the novel, yes. She published under a pseudonym, yes. She was dismissive of it, calling it a pot-boiler; but Plath was generally dismissive about any of her writing more then a few months old. But she is not technically secretive. Maybe it is a questions of semantics...
But what I did expect from Ciuraru's chapter on Plath was something critical, illuminating, and sharp. Something interesting! Something that would be a revelation: a secret uncovered. Instead, chronology was often disregarded: "...as her children lay sleeping, she sealed off the door to their bedroom with wet towels and opened their window wide" (190). And, there was just enough:
cliche: "She was living in a dreary London flat" (189);
hyperbole: "There was no telephone and electricity was intermittent" (189) & "As usual, Aurelia made everything about her..." (192), and;
bad metaphor: "'The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt,' Plath was once wrote, but when it did creep in, she pounded it like a Whac-a-Mole..." (184)
to make the chapter forgettable.
I am adding this book to a growing number of titles that will appear in the soon-to-be-released arcade game "Whac-a-Plath-Book-That-Sucks."
