The Poetics of Torture: The Spectacle of 's Poetry Narbeshuber, Lisa.

Canadian Review of American Studies, Volume 34, Number 2, 2004, pp. 185-203 (Article)

Published by University of Toronto Press

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/crv/summary/v034/34.2narbeshuber.html

Access Provided by University of Missouri @ Columbia at 11/02/10 8:19PM GMT The Poetics of Torture: The Spectacle of Sylvia Plath’s Poetry Lisa Narbeshuber

Sylvia Plath, in her most ambitious poems, tackles the problem of female selfhood. What is it? Within a world where women are con- tained by rigid scripts and relegated to silence, how can they revolt? On the one hand, she gives us poems like “The Applicant” and “,” where women, reduced to nothing more than commodities, appear robbed of their humanity. On the other hand, in poems such as “,” she presents selves in revolt, resisting assimilation to patriarchal ideals. In both cases, Plath’s poetry reacts against the absence, especially for women, of a public space, indeed a language for debate, wherein one might make visi- ble and deconstruct the given order of things. In the following, I argue that Plath deliberately blurs the borders between the public and the private in two of the most celebrated, controversial, and cri- tiqued of her poems: “” and “Lady Lazarus.” Transforming the conventional female body of the 1950s into a kind of transgres- sive dialect, Plath makes her personae speak in and to a public realm dominated by male desires. Giving the fem ale con stru ct voice, so to speak, Plath prefigures recent trends in feminist criticism that read the female body as text. Susan Bordo, for example, sees in the emer- gence of agoraphobia in the 1950s and anorexia in the 1980s rebel- lious performances: The public wants to see the woman in the home, so the woman responds by fearing to go out (agoraphobia); the pub- lic wants to see the woman thin, so the woman starves herself (ano- rexia). Bordo summarizes her argument in a language that echoes Plath’s poetic desires:

In hysteria, agoraphobia, and anorexia, then, the woman’s body may be viewed as a surface on which conventional constructions of femininity are exposed starkly to view, through their inscrip- tion in extreme or hyperliteral form. They are written, of course,

© Canadian Review of American Studies/Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34, no. 2, 2004 186 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) Woman.” sis, andofaneedtoidentifytheemergencesome mighty“Ur- thought inPlath’spoetry,defendingheragainstcharges ofpsycho- sion ofthecommentators’needtofindwholeness andsteady bodily energy”(Bundtzen33–4).Butsuchstatements areanexpres- neither madnor‘uglyandhairy,’butaphoenix,flame ofreleased struggling womanartist’s“independentcreativepowers …Sheis fully liberated,fierytrueself…”(Kroll118–9);anexpressionofthe speaker’s “trueidentityasatriumphantresurrectinggoddess,the derful, “searinglyself-confident” 122); a won- of abuseandnightmaretooneliberation”(Markey Lazarus” as“atriumphofvitality”(Broe175);ajourney“fromlife man ormen.Forexample,criticsregardtheirrepressible“Lady phy, thenasthefeministstrugglesofavictoriouswomanover around thepsychologyofPlath’slife,ifnotexclusivelyasbiogra- ics’ assumptions.WhenPlathevokesimagesof wholenessin despite imagerytothecontrary.Thepoemsdonotbear outthecrit- tators echoeachother’sdesirestorecoversomeimaginary totality, Lazarus” andlimitingtheircommentaryinthisway, Plath commen- icism. vate andthepublichasnotbeenexploredinanydepthPlathcrit- This desireinPlath’spoetrytotracetheconnectionbetweenpri- object. crous publicperformanceorevent,withthebodyasdisplayed public, tothepointwherepersonalallbutdissolvesintoaludi- tive side.Invariousways,Plathbrashlypairstheprivatewith rebellion almostnecessarilycontainanunacceptable,self-destruc- bodies, whichisexposedaspathological.Likewise,theiractsof as pathologicalcasestudies;ratheritistheculture,writtenontheir reveal theirpublicvoicelessness.Plath’sspeakersshouldnotberead cating (aswewillseemostobviouslyin“Daddy”),butthisservesto agoraphobic andanorexic.They,too,mayhavetroublecommuni- performers andrebelliousexaggerators,verymuchlikeBordo’s realm, thespeakersin“Daddy”and“LadyLazarus”becomepublic As wewillsee,inordertobringtheirprivateselvesintothepublic tive language,voice,orpolitics,butprotestnonetheless.(175) scious, inchoate,andcounterproductiveprotestwithoutaneffec- female disorderisthatofpathologyasembodied It isnowonderthatasteadymotifinthefeministliteratureon around thecorner,waitingathorizonof“normal”femininity. speaking tousofthepathologyandviolencethatlurksjust in languageofhorriblesuffering.Itisasthoughthesebodiesare 1

Instead, mostcriticismreads“Daddy”and“LadyLazarus” 2

By focusingonthe o cl con VnDn 55)exhibitionofthe (Van Dyne usi on

of suchpoemsas“Lady prot est — uncon- Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 187 and

dual vi ndi i complexes rather

ve i ect ersu bj But for Plath, ideally, parody nt

i . dual vi ndi i that Judith Kroll and other Plath critics focus on. that Judith Kroll e f ri st er nn i “Daddy” and “Lady Lazarus,” she inevitably undercuts them, Lazarus,” she inevitably undercuts “Daddy” and “Lady constructed- systematic play of elements and the emphasizing the She moves out of the skin of the ness of meanings. sketches out the social game, the sketches out the than the Plath de-emphasizes identity and emphasizes the roles of various identity and emphasizes the roles Plath de-emphasizes the then, does not so much demonstrate systems. Plath’s poetry, as show or “real” self by the patriarchal, crushing of the authentic subject. More fantasy in the construction of the the role of (social) her husband or father), than an attack on the male (or in particular of the status quo that accepts the her poetry confronts the mentality of the natural, or even the ideology of the individual and notions the private, the hidden, and personal, self. She unveils and critiques public discourses of power the normalized by parodying various her personae as objects of those (gendered male), while portraying and the spectacles of pun- discourses and, thereby, both the agents ishment. in her poetry by relentlessly Plath creates an arena for public debate (and objects) in quotation marks. placing everyday discursive forms but everything from machinery She parodies, not just literary form, to the mythology of the does not reform; it destroys. For some critics, Plath’s later poetry does not reform; it destroys. For some (Linda Hutcheon’s descrip- attempts only an “imitative recasting” Plath’s work “has been seen tion of parody). Hutcheon writes how of the modes of male modern- as a feminist reworking (or parody) Plath’s parodic subversions are ism which she inherited” (54). But literary debates, such as not primarily concerned with minor Frederick Buell, for exam- between the modernist and the romantic. “Lady Lazarus,” Plath mocks ple, writes that, in poems such as as “self-destructive unity” romantic ideas of poetic “incarnation” (149). Similarly, Toni Saldivar writes how Plath mocks the American literary tradition, perpetuated by Harold Bloom, “of the highly indi- vidualistic gnostic imagination that tries to see through the given world in order to see itself in some reassuring self-generated formal identity” (112), while Mary Lynn Broe reads “Daddy” as “pure self- parody,” in which “the metaphorical murder of the father dwindles into Hollywood spectacle” (172). These writers are not wrong in their assessments, but, as Hutcheon warns, parody may be limited, in that it often remains conservatively locked within the terms of the discourse it ridicules. Plath sets her sights beyond literary battles or Oedipal struggles. 188 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) tion thatPlathmayhavebelievedsheactually James Fenton,althoughagreeingwithRose,throws out thesugges- simply notenough. for beingawoman(daughter,wife),asthepoemwouldhaveit,is it necessarytoturnherintoapersecutedGerman.Herpersecution Germans didtotheJews,”believesLeonWieseltier[20]),Rosefeels (“Whatever herfatherdidtoher,itcouldnothavebeenwhatthe show thatPlathhas“earned”therighttorepresentHolocaust Plath] experiencedinherveryperson?”(229).Instruggleto clusion, “Whocansaythatthesewerenotdifficultieswhich[Sylvia quite clear—thespeakerdidnotparticipate”(228).Roseasksincon- to claimarelationshipaneventinwhich—thepoemmakesit poem presentsuswith,therefore,ispreciselytheproblemoftrying (228); afterall,Plathwassecond-generationGerman:“Whatthe that “Daddy”represents,inpart,“acrisisoflanguageandidentity” and forwardsbetweentheGerman“Ich”English“I,”argues outrageous comparisons,Rose,notinghowPlathmovesbackwards poems inwhichthoseallusionsappear”(205).IndefenceofPlath’s ing theoutrageoccasionedby“Daddy,”whichisjustoneof by SylviaPlath’sallusionstotheHolocaustinherpoetry,andnoth- outrage inhercritics,nothinghasproducedthegenerated aphor. Rosebegins,“Forawriterwhohassoconsistentlyproduced entire chaptertothedebateoverPlath’s“inappropriate”useofmet- work. JacquelineRose,inheranalysisof“Daddy,”devotesthe her spectaclesofabuse,providesakeytounderstandinglater transgressing “goodtaste.”Nevertheless,her“badform,”including It isnotsurprising,then,thatPlathhasbeenlambastedsooftenfor domestic lifeastorture. spectacle, revealingformasdeformity,thenaturalcommodity, women. Plathstagesapublictrial,turningthecommonplaceinto public, crackingopentheinteriorspacestraditionallydesignatedfor itemize thedebris.“Daddy”makesinvisiblevisible,private much “dwindle”asexplodeintoHollywoodspectacle,carefulto her worldandplaceinit.“Daddy,”forexample,doesnotso Not restrictingherselfto“pure”parody,sheattemptsreinvent might notbeaJew(eitherfromhermother’ssideorthrough sim- by nomeansfar-fetchedforhertohavewonderedwhether she is notanissue),andsheknewherfathertobePrussian,then itis thought ofherfatherasapersecutingfigure(rightlyorwrongly her mother’s,wouldcertainlybepartofheritage.And if she Fear ofpersecutionforbeingaGerman,whetherherownfear or was

Jewish: Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 189 One cannot see the

3 4 . Plath wants to dismantle the interiority of the “shoe”- oot You do not do, you do not do Any more, black shoe In which I have lived like a foot For thirty years, poor and white, Barely daring to breathe or Achoo. (1–5) ply not knowing quite what a Jew was, but knowing they were what a Jew was, but knowing they were ply not knowing quite persecuted). (14) whole from these little pockets of private perception. Stressing, then, whole from these little pockets of private “private experience,” Plath the collective engineering of so-called invisible worlds to the cultural charts a metaphorical map, linking processes that inform them. family conflicts between par- “Daddy,” notoriously, re-stages secret wives. It lifts a veil covering ents and children, husbands and as significantly, Plath “talks shameful social relations. And just a claustrophobic domestic back.” The opening lines vividly picture space: This (cultural) space allows for little movement or even speech—she can’t “breathe or Achoo.” For Plath, the domestic realm stands out in the open, but unnoticed, hidden, or—as the poem suggests— underf house, revealing its contents. As the progression of “Daddy” under- scores, her new theatre is external, a decidedly worldly place, full of worldly struggles and a worldly language: “Atlantic” (11), “Polish town[s]” (16), “wars” (13), “Dachau, Auschwitz, Belsen” (33), “[t]he snows of the Tyrol, the clear beer of Vienna” (36), “swastika[s]” (43), “Fascist[s]” (48), and so forth. Interestingly, these critics’ rationalizations of her Nazi/Jewish critics’ rationalizations of her Interestingly, these private and the poems to autobiography, to the imagery return her a broader his- Plath’s metaphors cry out for individual, even while in terms context. By radically redefining herself torical and political justified collective worlds, Plath (whether of historically grounded, When displaces the solitary, private individual. or not) successfully camp Jew, she compares identifying herself with the concentration identifies her father and hus- herself to a community, just as she as a part of an historical polit- band, who play the tormenting Nazis, Plath suggests that her own ical organization. In all of this, conceptions of femininity, contemporary experience—everyday family—conforms to collective individualism, and the privacy of the of the public, its retreat to the patterns. She fights the disappearance in general. privacy of the home, and “seriality” 190 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) a homogenizing,mechanicalforce.Sherespondsin kind,withher “chuffs” outthesamesoundoverandagain,revealing itselfas of theoppressor’slanguage(“Anengine,anengine”), which Her fixed“ich”mayalsobeseentomirrorthestuttering repetition does nothideherdeficiencybutgivesvoiceto fear andanger. Even thoughshemaystutter—ashamefuldefect?—the persona but shestrugglestorespond: mon amongfamilies.Sheoccupiesthepositionofspeechlessness, back,” fantasizingpossiblealternativestothepactofsilencecom- Within thisworldofconflict,Plath,asIsuggestedearlier,“talks ships normallyremainserializedandclosedofffromsociallife. domestic intothepublicarena,shehighlightshowtheserelation- ships publiccurrency.Atthesametime,byhavingto violent andgrotesque cious, dramaticcomparisons,Plathpictureshumanrelationshipsas her situation falling whereitdoes,alsointroducesherownwords:asiftosuggest her, Germanis“thelanguageobscene,”buttheword“obscene,” sizes theword“obscene”byplacingitatendofstanza.To of discourseviolatebodyandsoulmorethanothers.Sheempha- subject theself.Butmorespecifically,sheimpliesthatcertainstyles In general,Plathsuggeststhepoweroflanguage(“anengine”)to bearing downonthecollectivebody: The Germanlanguageactslikearepressive,mechanicalpower, sciousness cangraspthemachinerythatproducesandoppressesit. the private,”shoe”-worldtojustasstiflingpoliticalworld,con- struggles, socialorganizations,andlinguisticsystems.Movingfrom In “Daddy,”private“familymatters”linkupwithlargehistorical I couldhardlyspeak.(24–8) Ich, ich, It stuckinabarbwiresnare. The tonguestuckinmyjaw. I nevercouldtalktoyou. I thinkmaywellbeaJew.(30–5) I begantotalklikeaJew. A JewtoDachau,Auschwitz,Belsen. Chuffing meofflikeaJew. An engine,anengine And thelanguageobscene and

her metaphorsareindecent.Throughsuchauda- spect acl es , givingindividual,privaterelation- f orce

the Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 191 in

el Ari er underlying desire to er underlying desire H 5 he important points of resist- t and it was you. (77–9) (clarity, directness, multiple worldly allusions) (clarity, directness, multiple worldly

6 knew in 1966 to insist that Plath’s father had been nothing like the And the villagers never liked you. They are dancing and stamping on you. They always

me image in the poem” (229). As this quotation demonstrates, Plath’s poems, intentionally or not, perform a sort of “talk back” or “back talk,” a rudely public, counter-discourse that rejects the family code of silence. By making feelings and ideas public, Plath risks a great Ti be desired by her father (“[e]very woman adores a fascist” [48]) has father (“[e]very woman adores a fascist” be desired by her game, living to play along with the terms of his caused her, at times, language. “Daddy” embodies within the rigid configurations of his for Plath utilizes a lan- tremendous socio-psychological tension: guage of mastery She does not want to be alone in her condemnation of the Other. For She does not want to be alone in her Plath, this collective problem deserves a collective response, and she aims to give it one. It should be noted, especially in the case of Plath, whose biography attracts so much attention, how she moves from the literary universe to the “real world.” Jacqueline Rose tells how an “old friend wrote Plath’s mother on publication of the poem in the review of similarly aggressive “obscene” language: She speaks crudely, and in “obscene” language: She speaks similarly aggressive and says to her way, of her “Polack friend” (20) a most unladylike not only “the you bastard” (80). By speaking father, “Daddy, daddy, (“Ich, ich, but also the actual German language language obscene” attempts to demonstrates that, even as she ich, ich”), the persona claims on (male) language, it makes heavy escape her oppressor’s suggest her complicity. her. It may even ance, on the margins. fantasizes herself as powerful, Within these boundaries, her persona she imagines killing them overpowering her tormentors, as when [71]), even driving a stake (“If I’ve killed one man, I’ve killed two—” in the final act, she desires a col- into her father’s heart. Significantly, lective judgement of this drama: that she simultaneously subverts with her startling array of mar- that she simultaneously subverts baby talk, speech defects, “hyste- ginal voices (with nursery rhymes, submission to cultural ria”). But Plath’s parody, while revealing dramatizes both her imprison- paradigms, transcends ridicule. Plath the important work of laying ment in the oppressor’s script—doing out dominant discursive codes— 192 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) eliminate anyformofpublicstage.In like thepassingnurses.Iarguethat,forPlath,rationalizedworlds encouraging hertoabandondifferenceandbecome“uniform,” white surroundingssuggeststheseductivenatureofinstitution, of theblood-redtulips.Forme,persona’sdesiretomeltinto haven fromsocialobligations,whichisdisturbedbytheemergence the whiteroomin“InPlaster”asrepresentingaplaceofpeace, life” (156).Somecritics,includingLindaWagner-Martin(64–5),read results ineradicationofherselfandobliterationthevolatility ness ofthewhitewallspressesinonspeaker…Thepressure Renée Currywriteswithrespectto“InPlaster”:“Thewintrywhite- of thehospital,effectivelylosingheridentityoruniqueness.As sterilized, white,homogenous,flat(andpatriarchal)surroundings “theatrical/ Comebackinbroadday”(51–2).As “Daddy,”the through dialogue,gesture,andsheerphysicalpresence: througha into visibleactorscapableofdisruptingthecommodified world (26). Theelementsofareifiedsocialmatrixcomealive, transformed and carnivalesquefashion,beforethe“peanut-crunching crowd” In “LadyLazarus,”Plathputsherpersonaondisplay, intheatrical ual andcollectiveexperiencesresponses. between non-publicandpublictypesofdiscourse, individ- some ofherlatepoems,exposesandchallenges thedeeprift voice fromthenext.Againstthisabsenceofpublicforum,Plath,in one else.Thepoem’ssharpstanzaicdivisionsstructurallydivide course. Thethreeneverspeaktoeachotheror,forthatmatter,any- retreats undergroundinthefaceofhospital’soverarchingdis- Women:Aformed, whilein“,”“TheSurgeonat2a.m.,”and PoemPlaster,” theuniquenessofoldselfisliterallyerasedortrans- f viewed, byher,aspatriarchal).Forexample,in“FaceLift”and“In logic, statistics,uniformity,etc.,processesthataremostoften processes ofrationalization(i.e.,wheretheselfis“pavedover”by (very often much ofherlatepoetry,Plathrepeatedlyimaginesafragileself activities, forcingthemintoadramatic,conflictualdialogue.In abstract processesconcrete,shegiveshumanfacestocollective processes (language,homogenization,technology,politics).Making course, framingpersonal,familyconflictswithinlargercultural In “Daddy,”Plathreframestheprivateintermsofapublicdis- preserve thestatusquoofmiddle-classfamilylife. deal. Sherisksbanishmentbyherfamilyandapublicanxiousto f mi em ni or zed

Th ), subjecttoinhuman,andspecificallymodern, e oi ree V ces , thefemalepatientblendsinto Th e me , en om ree W

conversation Th ree Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 193 ” [29], or “it” [34– th at doll[s]” (emphasis added)

ng vi i l into a lifeless “paperweight” (7) and her face into into a lifeless “paperweight”

7 It works, there is nothing wrong with it. You have a hole, it’s a poultice. You have an eye, it’s an image. (36–8) “a featureless, fine/ Jew linen” (8–9). The poem’s frequently Jew linen” (8–9). The poem’s “a featureless, fine/ yet link, each appear to sharply break, and enjambed lines, which of broken body parts. stanza of three, reflect these images to her own perverse com- Although Lady Lazarus bears witness her theatrics somehow resur- modification (is there any other kind?), raises the commodity to a sort of rect a powerful self-possession. She no longer belongs to the mas- blinding “nakedness,” so that herstory John Berger’s use of it; he ter. The word “nakedness,” here, reflects (54). Lady Lazarus tries to writes, “To be naked is to be oneself” a metaphorical “nudity” that assume herself. She wants to subvert Applicant” and “The Munich Plath describes in poems like “The “nudity” and “nakedness”: Mannequins.” Berger opposes the terms others and yet not recognized for “To be nude is to be seen naked by as an object in order to become oneself. A naked body has to be seen stimulates the use of it as an a nude. (The site of it as an object and “The Munich Mannequins” object.)” (54). Both “The Applicant” figures’ obscene “nudity.” They powerfully dramatize their female “The Applicant,” the wife, liter- become pure, voiceless surfaces. In [33], “ ally a piece of property (a “living doll” 40]), a “guaranteed” (15), completely obedient slave, awaits pur- 40]), a “guaranteed” (15), completely chase by the male customer: that “can sew” (34) or “cook” (34) or “talk” (35) as they do in “The Applicant,” these manufactured women appear only for show. The parallelism of these lines sets up the male as consumer to her object. The potential wife does not control her own body or actions. In “The Munich Mannequins,” Plath takes the image of socially “tailored” woman to its extreme conclusion. The metaphorical mannequins expe- rience no pleasure; they appear only for the pleasure of others—for the tailor who takes apart, dresses, and assembles “her,” and for the con- sumer who watches “her.” Not even “ death she transcends is the commodification of her body. First, she is the commodification of her death she transcends and hidden. persecuted Jews, the marginalized again identifies with divided into has been stolen from her and Secondly, her body belong to the objects. These body parts/objects diverse, saleable an electric light them as they like. Her skin, like Nazis, who do with The “masters” as a Nazi lampshade” (5). source, shines “[b]right convert her foot 194 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) her peeledoff: demands herownexposure,tohavetheskin-likenapkin covering revolt againstwhatsheis,asortofenvelopedeath. LadyLazarus conflict emergeswhenthedesiresof(female)object ariseand understanding ofthewomanwhobecomesanorexic, adramatic an airofinstabilityandscandal.Consistentwith Susan Bordo’s rus,” theemergenceofhumanface,tofaceinhuman, creates verted throughtheatricalorparodicacts.Certainly, in “LadyLaza- Judith Butlerpositsthatthesocialconstructionofgendercanbesub- shade, of herowntorture,afrighteninglyanimated(humanized)lamp- the Munichmannequins,LadyLazarusplaysbothsubjectandobject tor whocalculatessuffering’seffect”(57).Unlikethewife-productor “Lazarus issimultaneouslytheperformerwhosuffersanddirec- As SusanVanDyneobserveswithrespectto“LadyLazarus,” Lazarus.” participate inexchangegeneral?”(84).Plathanswerswith“Lady such objectsofuseandtransactionclaimtherighttospeak can thisobjectrecoveritself?Or,asLuceIrigarayputsit,“How lack ofmind(“Voicelessness”27,thewifelyscript)isobscene.How seductive) on“silversticks”(14)formentoconsume.ForPlath,the quins are“[o]rangelollies”(14)(Lolita-like,innocentlysexually by doingso,makesthemspeaktheirgrotesqueness.Themanne- only “their”bodies,withoutthepretenceofvoiceorfreewill,and, that shedesirestheconsumingmalegaze.Plathleaveswomen which havebeenhidden,inpart,bythefantasythatshewantsit, display thewomen’s“naked”andtwistedcorpses, carded” (54).Byremovingmindsoabsolutely,though,Plathputson turned intoadisguisewhich,inthatsituation,canneverbedis- to havethesurfaceofone’sownskin,hairsbody, in away,invisiblespectacles.“Tobeondisplay,”writesBerger,“is ble, withoutmind”(15).Thewife-productandthemannequinsare, that muchmorepainful:Plathsaysthemannequinsare“[i]ntolera- female selves.Theirstranglingobjectificationmakestheirsilence These poemspracticallyexplodefromthestressimposedon In Munich,morguebetweenParisandRome,(10–2) These mannequinsleantonight So, intheirsulfurloveliness,smiles mat eri al

wi t n ess

of itsownproduction.In Gend rTrubl rou er T e , Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 195 , of pre- sh uni P and ne ne i pl sci Di Peel off the napkin O my enemy. Do I terrify?— (10–2) crowd The peanut-crunching Shoves in to see Them unwrap me hand and foot— The big strip tease. (26–9) The crowd has come to witness the effects of her suicide/attempted The crowd has come to witness the (44) that she does “exception- suicide, “an art, like everything else” they also act upon her, ally well” (45). But far from just watching, her sacrifice entails con- complicit in dissecting her body. Perhaps (the lower classes in the pro- veying to the disenfranchised crowd as a body of knowledge, their verbial peanut gallery) her body history held up to them. world over a world that keeps Plath’s drama superimposes a public this respect, “Lady Lazarus” ech- pain and death silent and secret. In in oes Foucault’s strategic idealization, This public torture both titillates and threatens. Lady Lazarus seduc- both titillates and threatens. Lady This public torture world of male prison camp with a pornographic tively conflates the desire: of Foucault’s work, one can modern communal discourse. In light recover the ritual (found in pre- see “Lady Lazarus” as an attempt to displaced by what Foucault modern models of punishment) corporal, solitary, secret describes as the contemporary, “coercive, Plath’s poetic arena echoes a model of the power to punish” (131). scenic, signifying, public, col- return to the earlier, “representative, description and documen- lective model” (131). Foucault’s extended details the intense symbolism tation of Damiens, the condemned, invested in the prisoner’s body. In effect, the condemned man acted out a theatrical battle between the king he had offended and himself. Power displayed itself before the community. According to Foucault, this life-and-death struggle was highly unstable, so that the condemned man, by addressing the crowd, might even persuade them into taking his side and attacking the judges. Similarly, Plath introduces a symbolic ritual wherein she can present the body as evidence, and wherein she can directly address the crowd. Each piece of Lady Lazarus is flagrantly on show, in much the same way as the earliest condemned criminals were on display during public tortures and executions. Rather than being kept quietly contained and hidden, as in modern methods of imprisonment, her torture plays in full view of the public: 196 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) ‘The girlwhowantedtobeGod’”(qtd.inIntroduction, want, Ithink,tobeomniscient…thinkwouldlike tocallmyself [Finke 94]),soPlathwroteinherdiaryon13November 1949:“I of Folignowrotethat‘theWordwasmadefleshtomake meGod’” Genoa; HadewijchofBrabantwished‘tobeGodwith God’;Angela claimed divineauthority(“‘MymeisGod,’wrote Catherineof represses hersexuality:notman,butGod”(96).Justas thesemystics ies: “Sheassumesforherselfthepowertodefine authoritythat and, indoingso,appropriateculturalrepresentations oftheirbod- mystics wouldritualisticallyinflictexcessivepain on themselves, Laurie Finkein self-flagellating femalemysticsinthelatemiddleages.Accordingto Plath’s positionalsobearsstrikingresemblancetothesituationsof her owndeath. Lady Lazarus,sheactuallyorchestratesthepublicperformanceof mocked andthecriminaltransformedintoahero.Incaseof prince” (61),thestatusquohereisputatrisk:Authoritymaybe execution, “whichoughttoshowonlytheterrorizingpowerof nal. Sojustasawholeaspectofthecarnivalplayedwithinpublic this execution”(68),astheymayadmireoridentifywiththecrimi- the execution.Theyareeven“thepossibleandindirectvictim[s]of rational proceduresofmodernity.Thewitnessesareparticipantsin lutionary potentialoftheritualisticdialoguetoremoved, visibility oftheplayers(crowd,judges,criminal,king),andrevo- Foucault clearlyprefersthedramaticpublicnatureofevent, sidered monstrous,suggeststheworkofanexceptionalnature. face ofit,whilethecrimethatgothimorherthere,especiallyifcon- nal. Thepersonwewatchfacinghisorherdeathfascinatesonthe argues, thepublicexecutioncondemns,whileitglorifies,crimi- more fascinatingandattractivetoherwitnesses.Hence,asFoucault position ofstrength,power,andprivilege,whichmakesherallthe remains ofhertopunishorprohibit.Inthisrespect,sheoccupiesa death, cansayanything.Shehasnothinglefttolose,since his execution, idea of“lastwords”hasauniquepotencyhere.Likeconvictbefore Executions traditionallyallowfortheconvict’s“lastwords”;and 40). ThispositionalsoresemblesSartre’sviewthat, above all, Nevertheless, Iamthesame,identicalwoman.(30–4) I maybeskinandbones, My knees. These aremyhands Gentlemen, ladies 8

Lady Lazarus,undertheprotectionofherown e i Fem ni st

Theo ry ,

Women’ ri s W t i ng , femaleorthodox Le tt ers Home man Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 197 “A miracle!” That knocks me out. There is a charge For the eyeing of my scars, there is a charge For the hearing of my heart— It really goes. And there is a charge, a very large charge For a word or a touch Or a bit of blood Or a piece of my hair or my clothes. (55–64) desires to be God (69–73). Sartre argues that man’s impulse to pos- (69–73). Sartre argues that man’s desires to be God to lay hold of is a transference of his desire sess a particular woman possess herself Could Plath’s desire, then, to a world in its entirety. self-flagellating her desire to be God? Like the as “woman” reflect both the in her poetry both object and subject, mystic, she becomes “Daddy,” for the one who scars. As we saw in one scarred and the oppressed stutters or speaks the language of example, she both like the and speaks masterfully. Ultimately, (“talks like a Jew”) the point that achieves representational power at female mystic, she to annihilate herself. Just she seems ready (at least metaphorically) of church and state in her as the mystic poached upon the authority the technologies that control, self-inflicted torture, so Plath usurps bodies. Within the context of construct, and harm her represented and mythologizes her self, not the poem, it is she who inflicts pain or the church. A bit patho- the larger institutions of, say, marriage resembles the neurotic who logically (and understandably), she abject victim or as sadistic identifies with death—either as master it. destroyer—in order to understand and part, from her having risked Lady Lazarus’s potency comes, in to the threats of male death and, therefore, becoming impervious theatrical tricks. It shocks and power; ironically, death is one of her writing on her body (which one encourages an audience to read the her poetry). Death is for her “an assumes will later be the writing of does “exceptionally well” (45). art” (44), a “call[ing]” (48), which she (52) as spectacle, “the theat- It brings her body into the “broad day” poetically by delivering paral- rical” (51). In part, Plath achieves this short, quick, condensed line to lel constructions that encourage each both the hectic intensity of this stumble into the next, mimicking the persona’s thoughts: spectacular event and the power of 198 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) parodies thefully,self-conscious,“male”poet. of traditionalpoetics.JustassheparodiestheChriststory,so At thesametime,PlathgatherspowerbyinvertingCartesian“I” guage andthoughtsofheroppressor. again emphasizesacertainentrapment(andcomplicity)inthelan- oes, likethestoryofLazarus,belongstoapatriarchaltext,which responsibility, especiallyinthiscase.Moreover,thestorysheech- fied forthesinsofall.Notjustoneperson,buteveryone,musttake cuted, butacollective,inmuchthesamewaythatChristwascruci- private selfintothepublicrealm.Sheisnotonepersonbeingexe- self withtheJews),sheloudlyandirreverentlyforcesherpersonal, Comparing herselftoChristattheCross(justassheidentifiedher- most dramatic,communal,andhistoricalofallpublicexecutions. parallels, Plathtransformsthisalreadyspectaculareventintothe flesh andbones,asyeseemehave”( my feet,thatitisImyself:handleme,andsee;foraspirithathnot echoes Christ’swordsinthe Christ’s crucifixionandresurrection.Thepersona’sassertionthat This “miracle”ofdeathandrebirthobviouslyechoesthestory ing lines: reduced tostatistic,quantity,orelements,asinthefollowing, chill- sought-after bodilyartefacts).Butshealsorepresents thebody my redhair/AndIeatmenlikeair”[81–3]),andthe saint(withher actress, thefreak,criminal,rebel(“Outofash/Irisewith their meanings(“Ihaveabody,thereforeIam”).Sheplaysthe thinking person;ormoreaccurately,sheletsthebodypartsspeak (13). Thereafter,sheexploreswhatthatbodymeanstoherasa collection ofbodyparts:“Thenose,theeyepits,fullsetteeth” the productionofherbody,itstextualization.Shefirstappearsasa in termsofinternalizedreflectionsormeditations,Plathbeginswith Nevertheless, Iamthesame,identicalwoman(31–4) I maybeskinandbones, My knees. These aremyhands New T est AV ment am , Luke24.39).Drawingsuch :

“Behold myhandsand 9

Instead ofthinking Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 199 he order of controls, constructed t resen t p is open for debate and change. Like Susan Bordo’s ago-

ng bei Ash, ash— You poke and stir. nothing there— Flesh, bone, there is A cake of soap, A wedding ring, A gold filling. (73–8) scripts, and stereotypes. The personae expose both the contempo- scripts, and stereotypes. The personae rary social organization and themselves as constructed, rather than simply given or natural. Their identities, therefore, have the poten- tial to be countered and reconfigured. The shape and meaning of hum an Plath’s death-camp metaphor (the cake of soap made from the body; metaphor (the cake of soap made Plath’s death-camp as violently the teeth) shows the persona’s body the gold taken from body, here, self-possession or unity. Her disembodied, lacking it best when dead, whether belongs to an exterior power that values useful commodities (soap, a as fragmented and refashioned into another script, resurrected into lampshade, … ), or as, according to And yet, behind the violent martyrdom for the salvation of others. non-serialized social commodification, Plath hints at postmodern, the “cake of soap”), dis- relations: the self-possessed body (behind filling”), and a symbol of com- plays of wealth and status (“[a] gold ring”). She puts on display munity and ceremony (“[a] wedding of human community that both commodification and the traces which resists complete assimila- commodification still allows—that plays a double role. As a vic- tion, a counter-memory. Lady Lazarus woman who has lost her body to tim, she dramatizes the torture of a But at the same time, she an anti-communal, serialized society. body, which partly represents a dramatizes the repossession of her body of knowledge offers itself body of knowledge. This sacrificial for the crowds of disenfran- as a gift, a form of recovered memory chised. and “Lady Lazarus” attempt to The discourses of both “Daddy” give shape to and make raphobics and anorexics, “Lady Lazarus” puts a human face on col- lective and dehumanizing processes, as well as aggressively addressing them. This is not just subject and object coming together, but the silent objectified–oppressed becoming subject and address- ing the centres of power. Her body is a collection of social artefacts; her body contains history and addresses history, but not piecemeal. Plath shows that the evidence is there to be dredged up and con- densed into a sensible shape. In “Lady Lazarus” that means a human form. Both “Lady Lazarus” and “Daddy” work out where 200 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) 3“ 2T 1P diverse aspectsofconstructedfemaleidentity. through theseself-flagellating,suicidalpersonae,wemaysee as thespeakersinbothpoemsdesiretheirowndeaths.Andyet, torture, althougheducational,aresimultaneouslyself-destructive, community bystagingdramasofpunishment.Thesespectacles munity shesilently,passivelyinhabited.Thepoemsconfrontthe the whole.Plathstandsoutside,views,andaddressesverycom- become a“serial”one,withinwhichtheselfcannotgainviewof power canbelocated,aswellpointingouthowthissocietyhas one another;theyexistsidebyalongsideabusstop”(256). The care aboutorspeaktoeachotherand,ingeneral,theydonot lookat are concernedherewithapluralityofisolations:thesepeople donot example ofagroupingpeoplewaitingforbusat stop: “[W]e cannot seetheirprofoundconnectiontooneanother.Sartre givesthe describes amodeofsocialinteractioninwhichmembers agroup organic unities. to sustainthemythicunityofpoet,doggedlyreadhertexts as all creativity”(66).Forthisreason,perhaps,thesePlathcritics, hoping the woman’sself;integratedhumanistindividualis essenceof objective whole.Paralleltothewholenessoftextis “women’s writingcanonlycomeintoexistenceasastructuraland mirroring whatMoidescribesastheAmericanfeminists’beliefthat Bundtzen, MaryLynnBroe),intheiranalysesofPlath’swork,maybe (63). JudithKrollandothers(forexample,PamelaAnnas,Linda against thisamiraculouslyintact‘femaleness’maypititsstrength” becomes amonolithicunifiedtotalitythatknowsnocontradictions; critics (inparticularSandraGilbertandSusanGubar),“ideology Moi argues,in pressing desiretowritethenarrativeofamighty“Ur-Woman.”Toril subject. and LindaWagner-Martinforafewbook-lengthdiscussionsonthe Plath’s artbutinherlife”(19).SeeJacquelineRose,AlStrangeways, Plath’s poetry.BruceBawerconcludesthat“therealinterestliesnotin (including Bronfen)despairoverthisreductiveapproachtoreading graphical appraisalthathasreworkedherlifeforus”(7).Somecritics implicated thatwecandonothingbutreadherpoetrywithinthebio- fen, forone,believesthatPlath’s“lifeandherpoetryaresoinextricably the exceptionalfascinationreadershavewithherlife.ElisabethBron- biography orpsychologicalcasestudy.Recentcriticismhasexplored individual: lookingatherasconfessionalpoet,readingpoetry Not Seriality,” atermSartredevelopsin lath criticismstillcontainsherwithintheprivateframeworkof hroughout feministcriticalreadingsofPlath’spoems,therepersistsa es Sexual / Text ual

Pol i t i cs ,t Cri hat forAnglo-Americanfeminist t i que que of

Di al ect i cal

Reas on , Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 201 9.6 . on eri , Judith Body t . New h . he he t Cri at Power Pl

. New York: a and Poems of

New New vi ng e f re, ed ni u Li Syl t

ect c l of hi Cul Mour

ry Col of ern Psyc re The The Poet est The The W

The The

Theat sm , he he t ni rrors: and Mi Femi

h n : i at ght Pl . London: BBC, 1972. a Wei vi ng e urbance urbance eei Syl st S abl

Di of A ite d Unbear Ways Ways C ore specifically, Christine Britzolaskis, in her reading of the poem, ore specifically, Christine Britzolaskis, in ll line references to Plath’s poetry are to ll line references to Plath’s arious critics have made similar observations. Janice Markey, for one, similar observations. Janice Markey, arious critics have made he persona’s identification with persecuted Jews, coupled with the he persona’s identification with persecuted n an earlier draft of the poem, Plath refers to the suicide attempts as n an earlier draft of the poem, Plath refers Works Works individual “constitutes himself in the gathering as an objective element himself in the gathering as an objective individual “constitutes of a series” (266). writes, “Plath makes it clear in this poem that the exploitation of it clear in this poem that the exploitation writes, “Plath makes in society is in part due to women’s compliance women in a patriarchal involved” (16). In the sado-masochism Butler offers a psychological justification for the woman’s willingness justification for the woman’s willingness Butler offers a psychological pleasure arguing that we all discover sexual and desire to be oppressed, that dominate us. within the power structures impersonality, and dis- According to Alicia Suskin Ostriker, “[c]ontrol, masculine virtues” (88–9) passionateness are supposedly normative, language” (168), along with and what characterize “the oppressor’s Plath’s poetic style here. where she feels like a foot foot imagery here (also seen in “Daddy,” historical anti-Semitic repre- inside a shoe), is especially apt, given the the Jewish foot. sentations of the Jewish body and, in particular, “weak” feet of Jews were seen According to Sander Gilman, the flat or characters. Gilman elaborates: as a sign of their badly formed, “weak” of the Jewish body being “The foot became the hallmark of difference, images aimed at a depiction separate from the real ‘body politic.’ These the social institutions, such as of the Jew as unable to function within quality of social acceptance” the armed forces, which determined the (359). executions (“Lady Lazarus”). not only to the biblical story observes that “The title alludes, of course, ‘I am Lazarus, come from the of Lazarus, but also to Prufrock’s lines: tell you all’” (152). My point is dead,/ Come back to tell you all, I shall of J. Alfred Prufrock,” Plath par- that, in echoing Eliot’s “The Love Song odies a specific canonical poem by an established male poet. York: Greenwood, 1988. Bawer, Bruce. “Sylvia Plath and the Poetry of Confession.” Annas, Pamela J. 4A 5V (1991): 18–27. Berger, John. Berkeley: U of California P, 1993. Britzolakis, Christine. Bordo, Susan. 6 7T 8I 9M 202 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) Ostriker, AliciaSuskin. ledge, 1985. ———. “LadyLazarus.”Draft1,pp.2,3.TheSylviaPlathCollection. Smith Poet Plath, Sylvia. Moi, Toril. Markey, Janice. Harper, 1976. t e i Fem Gilman, SanderL.“TheJewishFoot:AFoot-NOTEtotheBody.” Sheridan. NewYork:Vintage,1977. Irigaray, Luce. Form s Hutcheon, Linda. binger. NewYork:OxfordUP,2000.355–74. Kroll, Judith. NY: CornellUP,1985. Foucault, Michel. 1992. Finke, LaurieA. Pl Fenton, James.“LadyLazarus.” Curry, RenéeR. UP, 1997. Butler, Judith. Arbor: UofMichiganP,1983. ———. York: Routledge,1989. Bundtzen, LyndaK. Pl Buell, Frederick.“SylviaPlath’sTraditionalism.” Northcote, 1998. Bronfen, Elisabeth. Missouri P,1980. Broe, MaryLynn. Oxford UP,1999. i que at at h, h ry ry ni . London:Women’s,1993. . Ed.LindaWagner.Boston,MA:GKHall,1984.140–54.

. NewYork:Routledge,1985. and and msm i n The Am and and Whi Sexual Psyc eri t Col Chapt t he Gend can ness en Thi A hi Whi e i Fem l Body / ect c . Boston:Beacon,1986. Di Text A Prot s J ourn ers Li er . Westport,CT:GreenwoodP,2000. Syl Sex ed ed sci t Theo Pl e ni f . OxfordReadingsinFeminismSer.Ed.LondaSchie- Troubl e ual a ean i vi Women Poem s at pl n st of ey ey Whi St a h’ i

ry ry a

ne Theo Pol Pow eal Poet Pl i s Myt nt of ch ch I and and at e: ncant i . London:Faber,1981. i o ng

t

Paro ry, er: h i i e i Fem I Wri t hol c: cs: . WritersandTheirWorkSer.Plymouth,UK: s he P

t

New Not Theori The Women’ he

o uni at e i Fem Red dy: t gy: ni i i ng Language:

ons: sh: One msm Poet

York

The The Eye: ni Whi es

The

and and st Women . Trans.CatherinePorter.Ithaca, s ry ry i Teachi n Poet

Wri Revi Li t The e: of Subj Bi t t

he

erary erary

H. Syl The t rt ry ry wew i Poet ng Sub h ngs D. ect and and of vi of of . Ithaca,NY:CornellUP, Cri Em ,

i a Theo

ry ry Syl

on v El

t of B t Pl ersi he he t ergen ce ce ergen

of ooks i . Stanford:Stanford i Twent vi zabet at cal Pri

ry C on on Syl a h reat

. London:Rout- . Columbia:Uof Pl 29 May1997:12–6. E son of vi h ssays ssays at i

a et i Bi of I . Trans.Alan ve h dent Pl h-

. NewYork: shop, Women’ Proc Cent at on on i h: t y

Syl

ess Syl . New A ury Cri vi s . Ann vi a Art a -

Revuecanadienne d’étudesaméricaines 34 (2004) 203

cal i ect 25 al Di

ooks of B

of que i t ew . Chapel Hill: U of Cri . Ed. Wade Baskin. Revi sm . Madison: Fairleigh i Poems . Writing about Women: . Writing about Women:

f al . Literary Lives Ser. Lon- el i York York ow s e f Sel . Ed. Aurelia Schober Plath. . Ed. Aurelia Schober en t Ari Li ve ve . Vol. 1 of s st i Shad . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992. . Cambridge: Harvard New New

es h’ h ct of Exi at at Fi erary t n Pl Pl i ng ng he he Li sem bl a a t 1950–1963

vi vi A

En

ng ng ssays Shapi h: Syl Syl

E

cal at i essi e: of f Pl The The

Li a ng ng h: i Conf

vi Pract

at ng ng h: of si unt Pl rrespon den ce, Syl at a ry Pl Co Ha

vi Revi a vi Theo Syl The The Syl Home: ers t Let . 1960. Trans. Alan Sheridan-Smith. Ed. Jonathan Rée. London: NLB, Ed. Jonathan Rée. London: . 1960. Trans. Alan Sheridan-Smith. on College Library Rare Book Room. Northampton, MA. College Library Rare ———. New York: Harper, 1975. New York: Harper, Rose, Jacqueline. 3. New York: Lang, 1992. Feminist Literary Studies Sartre, Jean-Paul. Saldivar, Toni. North Carolina P, 1993. Wagner-Martin, Linda. Dickinson UP, 1998. Van Dyne, Susan R. Reas 1976. ———. “The Desire to Be God.” Nov. 1976: 20–3. don: Macmillan, 1999. Wieseltier, Leon. “In a Universe of Ghosts.” Secaucus, NJ: Citadel, 1956. 69–73. Strangeways, Al.