Sylvia Plath's first chapter of The Bell Jar, which we read as a class, is definitely one of the most striking and intriguing first impressions that I've ever read. In her first paragraph, she considers the idea of being executed and being "burned alive." I, who have yet to find a passion for reading, was immediately intrigued. I wondered, is this what it takes to secure the reader's interest? Is it more or less vital to begin your novel off in a shocking, odd, or even controversial anecdote? I'm sure that for many other readers out there, introductions may be given some leigh-way in terms of how interesting they are. But for readers like me, who could live without reading books, I think that a different yet interesting introduction is really necessary in order to grab the reader's attention and make sure that they are truly enthralled and interested in every line that you write.
There is definitely something fresh about her writing, though. From her frequent descriptions of what her true steam of thoughts are, to her perfectly accurate descriptions of New York, Plath's writing really captures my attention. Her constant focus on death, of some sort or another, did raise my attention because she killed herself not too long after the book was published. Now, looking back on it and knowing that she did take her own life, it leaves the novel with an eerie vibe (in my opinion) that may, actually, help make certain circumstances in the book that much more dramatic and intense.
You bring up an interesting point in your blog. How does an author capture the attention of an audience? I agree with you that it has to be “shocking, odd or even controversial. “ We are average human beings, with normal thoughts, and do normal activities; Eat, study, sleep, sports, etc. We want to read something out of the ordinary something other than our own mundane thoughts. Sylvia Plath’s first chapter of The Bell Jar epitomizes what I am trying to explain. She starts off by considering the idea of being “burned alive.” This is something that most people do not think about and even if they did, they would not vocalize their thought. Her way of explaining ordinary objects, like her clothes in her closest, make them seem strange and foreign, yet somehow true. She has a different mentality than most and views the world differently than the average reader. This is what fascinates me (and I guess other readers as well). Her introduction is necessary to grab the readers’ attention because it’s the “first impression.” Is this book going to be a boring, meaningless book or will it have substance? Sylvia Plath promises her readers that they will not be disappointed with this book, right off the bat.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, Plath’s introduction is one of the most intriguing beginnings to a book I have ever read. I can also identify with what you’re saying about not being extremely interested in reading and needing some sort of attention-grabber to keep me involved. I think this type of beginning isn’t something I find very frequently, but when it happens to be in a book I am reading I get hooked in the first few pages. For many authors I don’t think having an intriguing introduction is a necessity, but for me as a reader I think it makes the whole experience more enjoyable when I can’t wait to turn the page. I have found that I often enjoy books that lend a totally different perspective on ordinary things, and I think Plath makes it obvious in the first few pages that the story as told by Esther is one with a unique and dark viewpoint different from the average 19-year-old. I also enjoy how Plath keeps the momentum going throughout the book. Even if a book has an attention-grabbing start, very few books I have read keep me interested the whole story. Plath begins with a bang and keeps me interested through her narrative without letting the reader identify any superfluous or boring parts. This skill made the book a quick and really interesting read for me, something I don’t find very often.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the “something fresh” about Plath’s writing comment as well. Even though I felt underwhelmed by her metaphors at times, there were many points throughout the book where I could appreciate how visceral and powerful Plath’s descriptions and narrative were. I agree, too, that there was an eerie tone throughout the book caused by Esther’s uncommon obsession with death. Plath succeeded in creating scenes where I didn’t want to keep reading but felt compelled to anyways, such as the description of the birth or her suicide attempt with the sleeping pills or Esther’s first impressions of the private hospital she was taken to by Philomena Guinea. These three scenes stick out in my mind as parts where Plath really succeeded in giving the reader an uncommon perspective and they were ones I wanted to keep reading despite their incredibly dark nature.
I totally agree, the introduction was definitely captivating in a morbid kind of way, like when you see a car crash but can't look away. I feel so luke-warm with this novel, I lover Plath's style, she's genius; she encapsulates the many dynamics of her madness into stylistic writing that completely reflects how she feels, and even makes the reader relate. Although I love everything Plath does to convey her insanity through her writing, I still don't love the actual novel for some reason. My favorite books usually envelop me into them and never let me go, but for some reason when I read Bell Jar I don't enjoy it as a whole. I definitely enjoy recognizing Plath's decisions as a writer, and why she chooses to make them. But the book in itself did not captivate me, as I expected it would. Perhaps I would enjoy other works from her.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the fact that Plath killed herself adds quite a bit of drama and intensity to the novel. I don't think the novel would be nearly as fascinating or famous today if she hadn't ended up committing suicide.
ReplyDeleteI also really agree that the way Plath voices the narrator's speculations about death is an effective hook that gets the reader interested in the novel. I think, though, that many people have similar and slightly morbid thoughts and curiosities about death, but people don't voice them that often. For example, I've had conversations with people before about whether they think they'd prefer burning alive or freezing to death (I think I'd prefer burning alive). Almost everyone has an opinion on the matter, because people do think about how they want to die and what it will feel like to die. However, if people focus on death too deeply or too often, society thinks they're disturbed.