"Esther Greenwood's account of her year in the bell jar is as clear and readable as it is witty and disturbing".
This was written by Robert Scholes for the New York Times in 1971. I'm wondering if you guys agree that her year is "clear and readable" and "witty and disturbing". I agree that it is somewhat clear and readable and quite disturbing, but the I'm not sure I would describe it as witty.
"And "The Bell Jar" is not a pot-boiler, nor a series of ungrateful caricatures: it is literature. It is finding its audience, and will hold it". He also said this, which I completely agree with. Plath claimed for the book to be a pot boiler, but I think it is quite well written like what Robert said.
I think it's very interesting to see what critics think of the books we read in class.
-Shira
I would agree with this critics assessment of the novel. I think it's definitely disturbing how Plath talks about Esther and how she thinks during her mental illness. I'm not sure what he means by witty, though. If he means, humor-wise, I don't really agree because the book doesn't have very much humor in it. It's really a very bleak book
ReplyDeleteI think this book is clear and readable and witty and disturbing. The long rambling sentences broken up with the short direct sentences are like seeing a thought process in action, so you see from where Esther draws her conclusions. The book is definitely disturbing. Her paranoia and suspicions of other people permeate every scene, so by the time I put the book down I feel mildly paranoid myself. I actually find "The Bell Jar" a witty text. I think Scholes was referring less to an obvious, ha-ha amusement and more to the dry, sarcastic language that defines many of the characters in the book.
ReplyDelete