Textual conversations where authors reframe and re-imagine the literary works of prior composers enable for the assertion of their perspectives in a contemporary lens and have enduring relevance to modern audiences. Sylvia Plath’s “Ariel” establishes her progressive transcendence against stifling patriarchal expectations and strong desire for liberty reflecting her multifaceted exploration of the feminine identity. Ted Hughes' response, “Birthday Letter”, seeks to suppress public criticism, through reframing Plath’s defiant rejection of the male-gaze and shifting the focus towards the psychological struggles he believed shaped her experiences. Therefore, audiences can understand how Plath and Hughes texts craft a poetic matrimony defined by their collision in perspective, allowing them to engage with ideals from the past that still hold relevance today.
Plath’s feminist voice within, “Daddy”, expresses her strong desire for liberation from repressive male authority by portraying the psychological consequences of being subjected to such. However, despite drawing on her relationship with her father and Hughes, and condemning the patriarchy, she establishes - within the context of the second wave Feminist movement - that these unjust gender dynamics cannot completely be overcome. This masculine oppression of her life is portrayed within the extended metaphor of her father and Hughes as a vampire who “drank my blood for a year, seven years”, displaying her detest towards the sacrificial role of a woman towards a man, and thus condemning the oppressive hierarchy between genders. By mythologically alluding to vampires within “There’s a stake in your fat black heart / And the villagers never liked you”, she recognises and rejects the undying nature of androcentrism for the collective, whilst highlighting the necessity of destruction to dismantle such for women’s liberation. The repetition in “Daddy, Daddy, you bastard, I’m through”, where even whilst renouncing her father, the invocation of his presence suggests that his influence remains inescapable, proposing that complete patriarchal liberation from toxic personal relationships is unachievable. Therefore, Plath’s “Daddy” ultimately suggests through her experiences that even in rejection, the influence of male oppression lingers, making complete liberation unattainable.
Conversely, Ted Hughes' response to Plath in “Fulbright Scholars” portrays the elusiveness of memory to reframe her entrenched representation of their relationship within “Daddy” and redirect public condemnation. Hughes’ shifting context, and its embrace of the Western second-wave feminist movement, critiques his potential role as part of the oppressive forces which drove Plath’s suicide. To mitigate this, he consistently uses unreliable narration, seen in: “Where was it, in the Strand? A display of news items, in photographs”, where the rhetorical tone crafts a sense of uncertainty of the experience to mimic Plath's audience’s limited knowledge of their relationship and thus critique the superficial manner of their engagement with personal memories - diverting the criticism elsewhere. Hughes stylistic use of a textual conversation with the readers allows him to address the public opinion through metaphor, likening them to “judges” and “strangers” who intrude on their private relationship despite an obliviousness to the specifics. In spite of establishing an uncertainty of his memory, Hughes’ suddenly culturally alludes to Plath’s “exaggerated American smile” to suggest how superficial exteriors and appearances can deceptively hide truth, and to foreshadow the depression he refers to within later poems and craft a sense of credibility to gain favour of the public narrative.
Through “Lady Lazarus (1965)”, Plath recontextualizes and adapts the biblical story of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus to provide commentary on the loss of the feminine identity and empowerment individuals experience when subjected to oppression in a patriarchy. She describes herself as “Bright as a Nazi lampshade” likening her male experiences to the commodification of the Jewish and their suffering.
Plath’s inability to escape the male-gaze and regain her female identity is seen within the metaphor of “strip-tease” observed by the “peanut-crunching crowd”, reinforcing the entrenched engendered performativity of feminine existence. By referring to “dying as an art”, she positions herself as both the artist and subject, where death is rendered as both a form of escapism from the patriarchy, and control over it - ultimately transforming her victimhood into a sense of personal agency. Within the last stanza, the imagery of “rising from its ashes” suggests an empowered rebirth, where she reclaims control over her narrative and feminine identity, followed by “I eat men like air”, which reinforces this dominance, illustrating that true empowerment is rooted within the ability to assert strength and autonomy within negative experiences, such as patriarchal control. Therefore, Plath’s “Lady Lazarus” allows audiences to understand the psychological impacts and consequences of trying to achieve self-actualisation under patriarchal suppression and disembodiment.
In “The Shot (1998)”, Hughes’ further attempts to dismantle public critique by reframing the root of Plath’s trauma to assert his version of the narrative. The second-wave feminist movement perceived “Lady Lazarus” as indictments of patriarchal control, where Hughes editorial control over Plath’s work further cemented his public image as someone who manipulated her voice posthumously. He dismantles these by representing Plath’s desire through high modality within “needed a God”, regarding her ‘obsession’ with her father, causing her psychological dependency on having “perfect” male figures in her life. The extended metaphor of a "high-velocity bullet" finding a "target" circumvents his role in the formation of Plath's worldview as he describes her as inherently destructive, deflecting any responsibility for her suffering. The absence of emotional depth as he cumulatively reduces Plath to a passive figure: “A wisp of your hair, your ring, your watch, your nightgown,” suggests the inevitability of Plath’s determination to self-destruct, allowing his conscience to bypass the guilt of her suicide. Therefore, Hughes’ focuses on Plath’s turbulent nature and previous psychological struggles stemming from her paternal relationship to provide certainty of his narrative to the public, and thus mitigate critique.
Plath and Hughes’ poetry reveals how textual conversations reframe perspectives within shifting socio-political contexts. Plath’s feminist defiance against patriarchy clashes with Hughes’ self-exoneration, enabling audiences to interrogate evolving values and assumptions. Their poetic interplay underscores literature’s enduring relevance in shaping contemporary discourse on gender dynamics and identity.
This is the essay that got me 9/20. In standard would it be around the same mark?
