[RCL]

Fathom runs an interesting piece by Wayne Booth on the public poses of Frost and Plath, dubbing it "upward hypocrisy."


http://www.fathom.com/index.jhtml?pageName=/story/story.jhtml?story_id=122107&cid=0002 43

[This message has been edited by RCL (edited May 07, 2001).]

[Caleb Murdock]

I just read the article, and I wasn't impressed with it. Putting on airs isn't unique to literature; we do it every time we open our mouths. Poets and sophisticated readers understand that the speaker in a poem is always a fictional character, even when the speaker closely resembles the author.

From time to time I hear somebody say something like "poetry is truth". But poetry is really fiction. Even if a poem is based on a real event, a good poet will not hesitate to sacrifice the truth if doing so will improve the poem. The truth of poetry is in its message, not in its details, but even the message can be exaggerated or romanticized.

Even if Frost and Plath were representing themselves in their poems, human beings have always represented themselves in the best light; it isn't news that poets do that also.



[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited May 08, 2001).]

[graywyvern]

Originally posted by RCL:
Fathom runs an interesting piece by Wayne Booth on the public poses of Frost and Plath, dubbing it "upward hypocrisy."


http://www.fathom.com/index.jhtml?pageName=/story/story.jhtml?story_id=122107&cid=0002 43

what's more pretentious than a site that won't let you read it unless you update your browser?

[ChrisW]

Caleb,
I'm a little puzzled by your reaction to the article. You seem to be in agreement with Booth that a certain form of "hypocrisy" (understood as role-playing) occurs all over the place in art and in ordinary life. But your tone is almost one of disagreement. Maybe you're just saying that Booth's thesis is obvious?
Still, it seems to me that Booth is saying a bit more than what you say here -- he doesn't just point out that putting on a mask is ubiquitous, he tries to distinguish a form of virtuous hypocrisy -- and of truthful fiction.
Frost's and Plath's hypocrisy, he suggests, is not self-serving but self-creating -- by trying to present the world as seen by a better self, they both become, for a while, that better self. Plausibly to imagine a better self is itself an achievement of that better self -- great fictions are AMONG the actions of the writer -- they should in some way be put in the balance along with the writer's other (possibly less generous) actions in assessing the writer's charcter.
Well, that's how I'd put it. I've thought about this issue myself, and I'm not sure Booth's statement is the most that can be said, but I find myself in agreement with him, and I think what he's trying to say needs to be said.
--Chris

Originally posted by Caleb Murdock:
I just read the article, and I wasn't impressed with it. Putting on airs isn't unique to literature; we do it every time we open our mouths. Poets and sophisticated readers understand that the speaker in a poem is always a fictional character, even when the speaker closely resembles the author.

From time to time I hear somebody say something like "poetry is truth". But poetry is really fiction. Even if a poem is based on a real event, a good poet will not hesitate to sacrifice the truth if doing so will improve the poem. The truth of poetry is in its message, not in its details, but even the message can be exaggerated or romanticized.

Even if Frost and Plath were representing themselves in their poems, human beings have always represented themselves in the best light; it isn't news that poets do that also.

[Caleb Murdock]

Yes, I was trying to say that Booth's thesis is obvious.

To be honest, I didn't really understand all your comments. I'm not sure what the difference is between "self-serving" and "self-creating". The only valid question that I can imagine is, Did Frost and Plath take their poetic personas seriously? That is, were they actually trying to convince the public that this is who they were? Or did they understand that their poetic personas were fictional characters?

I haven't read the article since I made my first post, and I really don't want to go back and re-read it. But I remember as I was reading it that I kept thinking, "This is obvious. This is obvious."

I think there are some personal reasons why everything seemed obvious to me. I have a metaphysical philosophy of life, and I tend to see everything as being symbolic. Nothing is strictly genuine, and I really don't think it's possible for any person to represent himself accurately. Whatever Frost and Plath were doing has been done by every other person, and every other poet. It's just a matter of degree and intention.


[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited May 10, 2001).]