"Daddy"
By Sylvia Plath
Plath, Sylvia, and Ted Hughes. The Collected Poems. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Print.
Summary:
The narrator in this piece struggles with identifying her father as her own. Because he was a cruel man, the narrator doesn't want to claim him; however, she does wish to have a father figure in her life so she struggles. In the climax, she decides to accept he was her father, but she is "through" with him.
The narrator in this piece struggles with identifying her father as her own. Because he was a cruel man, the narrator doesn't want to claim him; however, she does wish to have a father figure in her life so she struggles. In the climax, she decides to accept he was her father, but she is "through" with him.
Controlling Value 1
Purpose: Claiming a father will ease your life and provide safety and love. Context: Being fatherless leaves you vulnerable and unloved. |
Controlling Value 2
Purpose: Independance will ease your mind Context: Loving an evil man will haunt your life, making every one of your thoughts a remembrance and fixation of evil accounts. |
|
Synthetic/Figural Register
The father is described with figurative language. Because the figural register is very artful the description is what the poem is most known for, The speaker uses metaphors to describe her father.
The father is described with figurative language. Because the figural register is very artful the description is what the poem is most known for, The speaker uses metaphors to describe her father.
"You do not do, you do not do
Any more, black shoe In which I have lived like a foot" |
The father in these lines is compared to a shoe and the daughter is the foot. She is encased by her father, engulfed by who he is.
|
In this passage, the father is compared to a swastika and a being far from godly. There is no hope of the father being good for no sky or no morality can be revealed.
|
"Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through. " |
"The vampire who said he was you
And drank my blood for a year, Seven years, if you want to know. Daddy, you can lie back now." |
The father, here, is denoted a vampire who drained his daughter of her life force. Because he caused so much torment, she encourages him to lie back, to die,
|
Mimetic/Intertextuality
When I first read this piece I was very confused as to what was happening in the narrative. I understood there was conflict between daughter and father and the daughter was angry, but a lot of the metaphors were missed because I was either unfamiliar with the language or didn't make connections. Many of these connections were of moments in history such as the holocaust and details associated with concentration camps, Poland, religion and even vampires. The poem was very involved which calls for an audience who are knowledgeable of the time and places. This called for intertextuality. I did some research on what some of the places mentioned were and specific language that I couldn't make sense of. For example, the poem uses a repetition (repetitive form) of "ich" which means "I". I believe she is calling out for independance by repeating " I, I, I".
Reflection
Robert Olen Butler teaches us that all sensual details are fair game to writers. Stephen King says, "write what you know" to explain that writers should use their experiences and things they are familiar with. Plath, in her poem, uses the hatred and pain from her father and compress it to Nazi Germany. In a comment , I read that some believe Plath was using a correlation that was too severe. Comparing her pain to the pain of Holocaust victims' can seem too much, too daring, too close to home. However, one cannot deny that it works in this poem. You feel for this character. Her desire is s apparent. Even before I made inferences and looked at things thematically, I still felt sad for the character.
I believe this teaches me and other writers that there should be no limit to what one can write. I do understand that one of our core values states that students should understand the power of the word and adhere to the responsibilities of it; however, if one is referring to a horrific event in order to convey horror it should be used. I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing a breakup with the twin towers or a stubbed toe to a massacre. If it moves your audience, then use it. But also understand that it could also ruin your reputation if your readers think you have gone too far; if you care about readers that it.
When I first read this piece I was very confused as to what was happening in the narrative. I understood there was conflict between daughter and father and the daughter was angry, but a lot of the metaphors were missed because I was either unfamiliar with the language or didn't make connections. Many of these connections were of moments in history such as the holocaust and details associated with concentration camps, Poland, religion and even vampires. The poem was very involved which calls for an audience who are knowledgeable of the time and places. This called for intertextuality. I did some research on what some of the places mentioned were and specific language that I couldn't make sense of. For example, the poem uses a repetition (repetitive form) of "ich" which means "I". I believe she is calling out for independance by repeating " I, I, I".
Reflection
Robert Olen Butler teaches us that all sensual details are fair game to writers. Stephen King says, "write what you know" to explain that writers should use their experiences and things they are familiar with. Plath, in her poem, uses the hatred and pain from her father and compress it to Nazi Germany. In a comment , I read that some believe Plath was using a correlation that was too severe. Comparing her pain to the pain of Holocaust victims' can seem too much, too daring, too close to home. However, one cannot deny that it works in this poem. You feel for this character. Her desire is s apparent. Even before I made inferences and looked at things thematically, I still felt sad for the character.
I believe this teaches me and other writers that there should be no limit to what one can write. I do understand that one of our core values states that students should understand the power of the word and adhere to the responsibilities of it; however, if one is referring to a horrific event in order to convey horror it should be used. I don't think there is anything wrong with comparing a breakup with the twin towers or a stubbed toe to a massacre. If it moves your audience, then use it. But also understand that it could also ruin your reputation if your readers think you have gone too far; if you care about readers that it.