This is another review that I started ages ago and only recently uncovered. Not that it is worth publishing as it is in itself a poorly written review about a poorly written book: a reflection perhaps of the work itself... I have two reviews in the works as well, of Elizabeth Winder's Pain, Parties, Work: Sylvia Plath in New York, Summer 1953 (HarperCollins, 2013) and Marianne Egeland's Claiming Sylvia Plath: The Poet as Exemplary Figure (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013)
Adbo Publishing Company published How to Analyze the Works of Sylvia Plath by Victoria Peterson-Hilleque recently (978-1617834578). It is a slim volume geared toward students in grades 6-8 and features chapters which discuss Plath's life, The Bell Jar, "Daddy," "Lady Lazarus," and "Three Women." Two chapters examine each of Plath's works and are structured with one chapter being an "Overview" and the second applying different critical approaches to the work. It works out like this: The Bell Jar (Biographical criticism); "Daddy" (Psychoanalytical criticism); "Lady Lazarus" (Feminist criticism); and "Three Women" (Structuralism). The "How to Apply" such-and-such criticism to the work are written like an essay might be written, with thesis points and conclusions, etc. Their merit as being well-written or as representative to what a teacher might expect from a student is not for me to judge.
The content of the book is mediocre at best and I think that is being kind. It is victim of a poor understanding of Plath by the author and series editor; as well, there are questionably relevant illustrations and captions, and a fairly poor section in the back matter in particular the bibliography and resources.
The issues, chapter by chapter:
Chapter 2: A Closer Look at Sylvia Plath:
p. 16: The Harvard summer school course to which Plath was rejected was taught by Frank O'Connor not Frank O'Hara.
p. 17: Hughes was not well known when he met Plath in 1956.
p. 19, caption: Plath and Hughes honeymooned in Spain (Alicante and Benidorm), not Paris. They merely traveled through Paris...
p. 20, caption: The photo on this page shows Ariel, Birthday Letters and Crow. The caption reads, "Plath would never see much of her work published. Ariel was published in 1965, two years after her death." That the photo shows two books by Ted Hughes makes no sense.
Chapter 3: An Overview of The Bell Jar
Esther Greenwood did not attend Smith College (page 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29)
Ladies Day, not the Ladies Home Journal, hosted the luncheon.
Chapter 4: How to Apply Biographical Criticism to The Bell Jar
Again, it is unclear who is responsible for the "essays" in these "How to Apply" chapters: one might presume that it is Peterson-Hilleque.
"Argument One", p 32: "Esther's reaction to Buddy's relationship with the waitress reflects Plath's frustrations with Hughes's infidelity." Absolutely not considering the affair which caused the frustration to Plath (the one with Assia Wevill) did not start until a year after The Bell Jar was drafted. Very disappointing. There is more but I will skip around a bit so as to not be so misanthropic...
p. 43: "Plath writes in her journals about Norton seducing a waitress while he was dating Plath, which is something Buddy also did to Esther." Actually, Buddy claims that it was Gladys, the waitress, that seduced him.
Chapter 6: How to Apply Psychoanalytic Criticism to "Daddy"
p. 61: Otto Plath died in 1940, not 1943. By contrast, his death year is correct in the timeline on page 98.
Chapter 7: An Overview of "Lady Lazarus"
p. 66: Photograph of a scan of Hughes' "Last Letter" completely out of context.
Bibliography of Works and Criticism
p. 102: Plath's journals are not listed as "Important Works" and I beg to differ. Actually I do not need to beg; I just differ.
Resources
p. 104: Plath's 1982 abridged Journals are cited in the text, but the Karen V. Kukil unabridged edition is listed. Why the differentiation between works appearing in the Bibliography and in the Resources? Simply baffling.
Overall and in general this book How to Analyze Sylvia Plath is a miss and not recommended either for younger students trying to learn about Sylvia Plath or even the more advanced and adult Plath readers. Bad, quasi-boilerplate writing once again makes Plath the victim of an academic publisher attempting to capitalize on her popularity. Not to mention the cover is awful & among the worst Photoshop jobs ever. But I'll stop now...
The content of the book is mediocre at best and I think that is being kind. It is victim of a poor understanding of Plath by the author and series editor; as well, there are questionably relevant illustrations and captions, and a fairly poor section in the back matter in particular the bibliography and resources.
The issues, chapter by chapter:
Chapter 2: A Closer Look at Sylvia Plath:
p. 16: The Harvard summer school course to which Plath was rejected was taught by Frank O'Connor not Frank O'Hara.
p. 17: Hughes was not well known when he met Plath in 1956.
p. 19, caption: Plath and Hughes honeymooned in Spain (Alicante and Benidorm), not Paris. They merely traveled through Paris...
p. 20, caption: The photo on this page shows Ariel, Birthday Letters and Crow. The caption reads, "Plath would never see much of her work published. Ariel was published in 1965, two years after her death." That the photo shows two books by Ted Hughes makes no sense.
Chapter 3: An Overview of The Bell Jar
Esther Greenwood did not attend Smith College (page 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29)
Ladies Day, not the Ladies Home Journal, hosted the luncheon.
Chapter 4: How to Apply Biographical Criticism to The Bell Jar
Again, it is unclear who is responsible for the "essays" in these "How to Apply" chapters: one might presume that it is Peterson-Hilleque.
"Argument One", p 32: "Esther's reaction to Buddy's relationship with the waitress reflects Plath's frustrations with Hughes's infidelity." Absolutely not considering the affair which caused the frustration to Plath (the one with Assia Wevill) did not start until a year after The Bell Jar was drafted. Very disappointing. There is more but I will skip around a bit so as to not be so misanthropic...
p. 43: "Plath writes in her journals about Norton seducing a waitress while he was dating Plath, which is something Buddy also did to Esther." Actually, Buddy claims that it was Gladys, the waitress, that seduced him.
Chapter 6: How to Apply Psychoanalytic Criticism to "Daddy"
p. 61: Otto Plath died in 1940, not 1943. By contrast, his death year is correct in the timeline on page 98.
Chapter 7: An Overview of "Lady Lazarus"
p. 66: Photograph of a scan of Hughes' "Last Letter" completely out of context.
Bibliography of Works and Criticism
p. 102: Plath's journals are not listed as "Important Works" and I beg to differ. Actually I do not need to beg; I just differ.
Resources
p. 104: Plath's 1982 abridged Journals are cited in the text, but the Karen V. Kukil unabridged edition is listed. Why the differentiation between works appearing in the Bibliography and in the Resources? Simply baffling.
Overall and in general this book How to Analyze Sylvia Plath is a miss and not recommended either for younger students trying to learn about Sylvia Plath or even the more advanced and adult Plath readers. Bad, quasi-boilerplate writing once again makes Plath the victim of an academic publisher attempting to capitalize on her popularity. Not to mention the cover is awful & among the worst Photoshop jobs ever. But I'll stop now...