Closing thoughts on The Bell Jar

Overall, I really enjoyed Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar. I just have a few closing points I would like to touch on:

• I thought that our class discussion on the relevance of the title of the book was quite illuminating. The metaphor of Esther's illness being a bell jar is quite apt and precise. For one, she becomes a subject of study due to her illness and unable to hide and is comparable to a specimen under observation in a bell jar. Second, like a bell jar traps what ever is underneath it, Esther's condition traps her in asylums and even inside her own head. Furthermore, she is isolated from others by circumstances that are hard to understand for her loved ones. The glass of a bell jar indisputably exists, however it's transparent so not really distinct for observers like Esther's illness. The part of this metaphor I did not think of was the effect on Esther's perception under the bell jar. The jar distorts her vision and changes the way she sees the world around her. This information is crucial for understanding Plath's narrative voice and Esther's portrayals of the people around her. It nuances so many of the topics we've discussed in class.

• I'm extremely interested to read the note at the end of book for Friday. Unfortunately, I will not be in class on Friday because of a college visit so I will not get to weigh in with the context it provides.

•  There aren't that many central male characters in The Bell Jar. The most important men seem to be Buddy Willard and Doctor Gordon, both being representatives of males and medical professionals. Esther is not very nice about either. In fact, I think she says that she hates them both. Esther's intense reservations about men also tie into her reservations about marriage. However, Esther's ideas about medical professionals seem to change with her bond to Doctor Nolan. Unfortunately for guys, this probably just makes her more sure that men are generally pretty bad. It's interesting that despite Esther's concerns about men, marriage, and the expectations of heterosexual relationships, that she reacts so strongly against Joan's proposed homosexuality. Maybe this shows that some social customs still strongly influence Esther...?

• I think that expectations are very central to this novel. It seems that Esther lives for her expectations and they push her in so many directions that she eventually is driven mad by them. The first asylum setting puts a whole new set of expectations onto her. She is supposed to be crazy and badly behaved so she is. Then, she is moved to Doctor Nolan's care and things change. I would say that this is largely tied into the fact that Nolan doesn't seem to have many expectations that she is always throwing at Esther. She merely observes and lets Esther live as she likes. I think that Esther is so reluctant to move up in treatment because she is afraid of the new expectations in the new house. She will have a score of new privileges and Esther isn't eager to cope with the responsibility tied to the privileges. Maybe Esther realizes that the people in the next house are also sane enough to judge and this scares her as well. Other expectations that bother her are kind of a chain: that she will get married--> serve her husband--> give up her career and poetry--> have children--> care for the children --> continue to cook, clean, and serve for the rest of her life. She finds these expectations limiting. I guess you could say that they put her in a bell jar, just like illness, in a way.

•  It's amazing how aware Esther always is about her social status. Maybe most of this lucidity can be attributed to the fact that she's writing this novel in retrospect, rather than in the moment. However, I find it intriguing that she continually asses what others think of her. Two striking examples are when she decides not to mope when she moves to the house where Joan is because she doesn't want to give the other tenants the satisfaction and when she doesn't want Irwin to drive her back to the asylum.

• I find a compelling case to argue that Esther's condition is a regressive condition rather than her just spinning wildly out of control. First, it seems to be triggered by her conversations with her boss in New York and her not getting into the summer writing course. These two events stop the forward progress of her life but her fixation on social expectations keeps her on the tracks, so to speak. She simply retreats from the failure. Egocentricity in the form of paranoia, crawling about on the floor/not being allowed out of bed, being constantly cared for, Doctor Nolan as a new mother figure, living at home, etc support a case for regression. Then, as Esther improves, she loses her virginity, the quintessential coming of age/loss of innocence moment and begins again to progress in life. 

Just some necessary closing thoughts!

Two Symbolic Scenes from The Bell Jar

I found the metaphor and imagery used in two scenes in Sylvia Plath's, "The Bell Jar", especially striking. These were the scene where Esther takes a bath after her night out with Doreen and Lenny and the scene where Esther breaks her leg skiing.

In the first scenario, Plath carefully chooses words to evoke an image of a prenatal stage of development that Esther seems to be trying to return to. First of all, she is entirely removed from the hustle and bustle of the city. Then, there is all the talk of being hot and warm and immersing oneself in the bath. The emphasis on purity also draws out the image of a baby. Finally, at the end of her bath, she even says she felt "pure and sweet as a new baby", born out of the bath water.

I think that Plath highlights Esther's desire to be cleansed and pure to show that the scene with Lenny and Doreen wasn't some coming of age moment but a catalyst for regression. Esther also wants to forget what she saw rather than it sparking a revelation or some sort of progressive change within her. Her fixation on purity especially makes me think of a child because she wants to un-see what happened between Lenny and Doreen and regain her innocence.

The second scene is when Esther goes skiing with Buddy. First, like in marriage, Buddy has no prior experience skiing, save him watching others participating. Yet he still acts as an authority and confidently tells Esther what to do. He tells Esther to hang on to the tow rope but gives her an out saying that she should only go half way. Unfortunately for Esther, once moving with the rope, she is unable to let go and peel off from the rope. The tow rope is like her relationship with Buddy, it seemed like a good idea at first --non-binding and all-- but, then, once attached to him, she was unable to free herself. At the end of the rope, Esther finds herself at the top of the ski run. She is faced with a choice, but not a very good one. Her options are:

A) take the plunge and go down the mountain. This option seems to be the logical and generally socially acceptable choice. Here she obeys Buddy.
B) some how get back down another way, like taking off her skis and walking. This option is a bit more frowned upon and awkward.

Option A corresponds to marrying Buddy while option B is her breaking it off with Buddy.

In the end, Esther chooses to ski down the slope but at a physical cost, she breaks her leg. This is parallel to Esther's loss of a career, poetry, and condemnation to serve Buddy should she marry him. Finally, her leg is put in a cast. The cast symbolizes the stagnation of marriage, dependence on Buddy's care, and inhibited mobility caused by marriage.

I really liked both of these scenes because it's fun to figure stuff like that out. The second scene reminded me a bit of the "bank scene" from Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison from last semester too, because it was a very blunt moment of allegory in a novel where the symbolism is often very nuanced.

Attempted reaction to Catcher...

Throughout reading J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, I found myself with little to say during discussions. Usually, my books from Mr. Mitchell's class are totally marked up and I have a bunch of pages flagged as super significant scenes or topics to write about for papers but for Catcher I rarely wrote anything and have two pages marked. Maybe writing about writing about Catcher will help me figure out exactly how to react to the novel.

I liked the book. Readings were interesting and not taxing to read, especially compared to Portrait. I liked that there was a clear story line and well developed characters. I also liked all the characters or at least the depictions of them. They were interesting people to read about, from Maurice to Mr. Antolini to Ackley to Sally. Holden was funny, too. I definitely found myself laughing along with him throughout the novel but still, day by day the book didn't elicit a significant response from me.

I think one reason I wasn't head over heels for the book, was because I wasn't head over heels for Holden. I definitely liked Holden, but I don't feel oppressed in the same ways as he does and I actually enjoy many of the social customs he despises. Then again, I liked his biting sarcasm because I tend to have a pretty sarcastic sense of humor too. I related in a lot of ways to Holden but he wasn't my favorite protagonist I've ever read about and this book is ALL Holden, from page one until the end, it's just his experiences and opinions. If I had been more emotionally invested in him, I probably would have become more immersed in the book and become more willing to debate about him with my peers.

Especially when I have a whole class of wonderfully smart individuals, I tend to prefer to read novels I wouldn't get as much out of on my own. Portrait, Mumbo Jumbo, Ragtime, Mrs. Dalloway, Invisible Man etc. come to mind however, I think I could read Catcher on my own with great success. The book goes lighter on obscure metaphors and allegories than other books we read and those are the kind of things I like to point out in class and discuss. It's fun to pick a symbol or idea out of a book and realize that many people that read the book completely miss the point you've just discovered. I didn't have as many literary revelations in Catcher as I did in Portrait.

Also, not going to lie, I was SO sad when Holden and Jane didn't get together. I was SO ready for an adorable love story because they seemed super cute and then it didn't happen. Not even close. I was extremely disappointed to say the least. I understand why that wasn't the right move for Salinger but I was still sad.

Anyways, in the end, it was a good book. There were a couple of discussions (although I was sick for a lot of them) and scenes that stood out to me but it wasn't my favorite book ever. It was fun and the versions of the reflective and critical papers I'm doing are cool but Holden's attitude didn't always speak to me, maybe I'm just too nerdy and academically motivated for him... I still wish that Jane would have been more central.

The Fantasticks

The long weekend before Agora days, I was in New York City with my mom. On Sunday night, I went to an off-Broadway performance of The Fantasticks. It's extremely relevant to this class so I thought I'd write a bit about it.

The Fantasticks is one of the quintessential examples of a coming of age story. First of all, it's short and doesn't need an intricate set or a lot of people so for a long time it was THE show for high schools to do. The plot and characters of the story are suited for a teenage cast as well. The main characters are a boy, Matt, who is about nineteen years old and a girl, Luisa, who is sixteen. There is a narrator, who doubles as "El Gallo" (who I'll talk about in a bit), Luisa's father, Matt's father, two old stunt men, and a mute character who is basically just a part of the set and does "special effects".

The Narrator opens the show with a song about looking back and remembering sweet, happy times of youth and then the story begins. Matt and Luisa are two starry-eyed teens, anxious to do incredible, daring things, like going on adventures and falling madly in love, so they can be like the characters in books they read and be altogether better than normal. Both spend their days reading and dreaming. Oh, and Matt and Luisa are also neighbors, however they are separated by the wall (played by the mute character) that their fathers' built between their two houses because they are "feuding". It turns out that the two fathers are the best of friends and just trying to create intrigue for their children so they will fall in love. Interestingly enough, it works. The kids do fall in love, or so they think, as they sneak around behind their fathers' backs to see each other.

Now a problem arises: how to end the feud? The fathers cook up a plan and call the resident badass/bandit, El Gallo, to assist them. Their plan is to have El Gallo and his stunt men "attack" and try to "kidnap" Luisa but allow Matt to save her. Then, the fathers' will be brought together by the joy of having both kids home safely. It works. After an absolutely wild "kidnap" scene, Matt is victorious and Matt, Luisa, and the two fathers are all happy. However, as they four stand together in their picturesque tableau, dreaming of their future, the mood is tainted by the ominous message the narrator closes the act with. He asks of the audience, how long will their happiness last.

(Coming of age aspects included: falling in love, Matt protecting Luisa. Naivete still present though. More like a children's story than real life and Matt and Luisa have dreamlike expectations for the future.)

Intermission.

In the second act, the starry-eyed lovers become star-crossed lovers. The fathers fight leading to them revealing that the rape scene was staged. Matt and Luisa subsequently fight. The song "The Plum is too Ripe" repeats the line "from scenic to cynic" which aptly describes their situation. All the fighting leads Matt to choose to go see the wild dangerous world and leaves Luisa disillusioned alone at home. Luisa's silence and depression is interrupted when she, smitten with the danger and opportunity the suave El Gallo represents, convinces him to take her to see the beautiful, sparkling world. However, what she see disturbs her but El Gallo gives her a mask that makes the horrors of the world bearable. In her fantasy will El Gallo, he takes her to a variety of places and everywhere she sees this boy being abused (it's Matt but she won't acknowledge it) but her mask makes the abuse less horrific.

Soon, she's ready to be done with the world but she can't and is stuck on the ride with El Gallo. When she finally returns home, she is further disillusioned when she gives El Gallo her mother's necklace as a pledge of her affection and he runs away with it.

At the same time, Matt is returning from his journey, beaten and battered, and reprises the up beat "I Can See It", adapting it into a contrasting movement revealing all the trials he's had. He sees Luisa, crying after her encounter with El Gallo and goes to her. They are cold to each other at first but once they talk for a while, they realize that they want to be together. This time, however, with some sense of the world and a more realistic view on the future. The families joyfully reunite and the Narrator reprises the opening song but not with nostalgia and fancifulness, but with more wisdom.

(In this act, the children lose their innocence and although it is painful, it is necessary for them to lose naivete to be successful in the world.)

Curtain.

Another aspect of the play worth noting is that both stunt men are really old and experienced and  serve as the funny men for the show. Also, one of the stunt men specializes in death scenes, heavily satirizing violent and awkward deaths and old age.