THINQon : The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. Privacy after Death?

The Living Room General The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. Privacy after Death?

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Clark Thomas, I am an Elementary School teacher though I...

The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. Privacy after Death?

Latest Post: July 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM

3 followers

I just read a biography about Sylvia Plath by Janet Malcolm. Well, to be more accurate I should say it's a biography of Sylvia Plath's biographies. It's a fascinating read and is both about the life of Plath and the art of biography. The book picks up from the moment of Plath's death and tells of the story of the shaping of her legacy. It's a very self-aware book that raises issues of all biography and examine the role of bias in non-fiction. Malcolm asserts that it there is a shade of subjectivity in every written thing ever produced. The book is strongly put together and at times shines when Janet Malcolm's voice emerges from the page in a very natural and inviting prose style. On that note, plug aside and discussion commence!

One of the big questions that Malcolm investigates in the book regards the rights of the dead to privacy. The biography is altogether strange in that as you edge your way through, no clear portrait of Plath arises. She remains muddled and uncertain in our minds. Instead Malcolm shows us how Plath's legacy was put together after her death. She shows us all the petty interests of biographers and family members in shaping Sylvia Plath's place in history.

Malcolm doesn't shy away from the tough questions but she also doesn't answer them. At one point we discover that personal letters of Plath's have been published multiple times after her death. Should this be allowed? Those letters were filled with things that Plath only intended one other person to see, and her diaries were obviously only for herself? Should these things be published at all? Or if they are, should they be held back until no one is left alive who had an immediate connection with the writer?

These are tricky questions because letters and diaries obviously help create a more accurate picture of the deceased. Is it the biographer's job to take into account the feelings of their subject's family?

Of course the trickiness of the matter really only applies to people who died recently. Surely after two centuries no one could justify an argument not to publish the private writings of Thomas Jefferson for example. So when does privacy give way to history, when do letters become artifacts?

Do we owe any responsibility to the privacy of the dead? It is afterall, their contemporaries, who hold their legacy in our hands like a ball of clay.

Books Discussed

The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes
by Janet Malcolm

This post is referenced by the following other contributors:

Mark Opal

in "Michael Jackson is dead / Legacy, Privacy, and Twitter"

(Music Room)

Reply to:

Hanna Clapson, I am an English major. I write and think. I...

July 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM

22 followers

Hello Clark,

I haven't read this book but I am familiar with Malcolm as well as Plath and I think your post raises some interesting questions to the art of biography. You ask if privacy of the deceased should be respected, and if so, for how long. But what of those biographies of people who are still alive? Surely if the subject is still walking on the planet the biographer will have more access to information that otherwise might be lost when he/she dies. And yet at the same time, more interests are at stake. The subject most likely wants to come across in a certain way, and the biographer probably wants to stay in the favor of the subject (writing about anyone requires a certain amount of admiration and respect). The historians among us probably concede that it is important to continually come back to the subject and that there is as much worth in a biography from his lifetime as there is afterwards, invasion of privacy or otherwise. The individuals in us probably cherish the subject's privacy and our egos probably just want to see our name in print. Which suggests there is no easy answer about biographical privacy.

As you said Clark, the issue is really only ever at stake in the days and years after the subject dies. But those are also the years when the biographer can best piece together his puzzle. That's when the interviews are available and that's when people will want to answer truthfully without fearing repercussions from the subject. In the next few months we're going to begin to see many "Definitive Michael Jackson biographies" all of which will attempt to cash in on the public's fervor. But there is no such thing as a "definitive" biography because we know that information is continually cascading. It's most likely that these biographies of Jackson will merely be footnotes and background research for a real attempt at a critical biography of MJ in perhaps a dozen years.

And now I'm back at your final question: Do we owe any responsibility to the privacy of the dead? I think we owe more responsibility to their stories and that might mean an invasion of privacy but it also means a legacy. And yes, their families might be affected, but fame is a sacrifice while you're alive and even afterwards. If we refuse to peak into the dark corners of their estates in the years while we still have access to the front door, we are denying future generations the chance for truth.