What a thrill —–
My thumb instead of an onion.
Sylvia Plath in the poem “Cut” illustrates an ordinary experience, of having one’s finger sliced while cutting vegetables, as something extraordinary. The physical wound, however painful, is exciting in the beginning but the blood flow brings on an illness that is mitigated only after taking medicine. Is Plath being sarcastic, or is she exhibiting a psychopathology? Is she authentic in this poem? After all it’s just a cut. Since the poet uses first person in the poem, it appears as if she is speaking from her own experience. Perhaps she describes the common in uncommon terms because of the pleasure she is feeling. Or is she putting a “hat” on the readers making them find some meaning in her meaningless poem?
Plato, Aristotle, Horace as well as Longinus all stressed different characteristics in a work of art, from function, structure, content, to intention. They did not question art. Shklovsky argues for innovation in art, in language as well as form, and seeks to bring poetry into the realm of science and emphasizes technique. He wants poetry to shock the readers into true perception. Plath has managed to do that. Her poem hardly fits in the conception of what a poem should be as envisioned by the former four.
The poetess draws from a mental picture of the incident that becomes palpable to the readers as a result of the imagery used to describe it. The sensation of getting one’s hand cut that gives a “thrill” in the beginning later on changes for the worse and a “pill” is taken to overcome the pain. The poem is rich in its use of imagery. The sight of finger top hanging loose is likened to “hinge”, “flap”, “hat”, and “wattle”. Flow of blood appears to be a “pilgrim”, “carpet” rolling forward, “soldiers” marching on. Even the act of taking medicine to suppress the pain becomes a “celebration”. Staining of the “gauze” in blood as well is shown by word pictures. The bandaged thumb becomes a ku klux klansman, a “babushka” clad woman and the scarf “darkens” because of the stain. Plath uses images of battle and death to make the readers see blood flowing from the Cut, and seems to do so in an alluring sort of a way as if she is fascinated by it, and wants us to be attracted too. The terse blank verse keeps the poem from becoming automatic. Usage of short words and breaking of sentences make the reading fast paced. A sense of hurry as well as urgency is conveyed by the use of such words as “rolls”, “run”, “confronts”, “jump”, etc. There is emphasis on the language used, words convey the felt pain as well as the seen blood.
Dead white.
Then that red plush...
The stain on your
Gauze Ku Klux Klan
Babushka...
Trepanned veteran,
Dirty girl,
Thumb stump.
According to Shklovsky, in his essay ‘Art as Technique’, when perception becomes routine it becomes automatic and over-automatization nulls life itself. He looked at art as a means of bringing sensations back to life. He also argued for the creation of a work of art “artistically” that its apprehension becomes difficult and its effect is lengthened. He talked about the technique of defamiliarization to promote ‘true perception’ of things and emotions as against ‘recognition’ promoted by arts. Defamiliarization is “the capacity of art to counter the deadening effect of habit and convention by investing the familiar with strangeness and thereby deautomatizing perception”. This is done by making the poetic speech rough and “tortuous”, which can be reflected either in the choice of style or words used.
Plath has used defamiliarization to make the readers jerk out of their automatic responses to a poem. Choice of an ordinary incident as the subject of the poem marks the beginning of this process. Treating of laceration of a thumb may be a subject of poetry in terms of what Shklovsky has propounded, Plato or Aristotle would have hardly thought this to be an apt subject for poetry, according to whom it should be either in the service of society or give pleasure by catharsis of like emotions. Horace and Longinus stress the place of sublime in and aesthetic experience of a poem while reading it. They emphasize effect of a poem. However the experience of cutting a finger and the pain arising out of it does not appear sublime or aesthetic. Does reading this poem give any pleasure? No. Does it help in purgation of painful feelings? Perhaps.
Further defamiliarization is achieved by the use of words like “hinge of a skin”, “axed your scalp”, “kamikaze”, “balled pulp” etc. that make the readers attend carefully to the poem. Why has Plath used these mechanical words, as well as words that conjure images of war, to describe the incident? Apparently she wants to see a serious look on the faces of those who read this poem, but it could may as well be that she is laughing at her readers, making them fall in her trap of taking it seriously. It does seem ridiculous to compare thumb to an onion and skin to flap and hat. Then the chopped off thumb becomes a pilgrim who looses his scalp to an Indian and blood is a marching company of soldiers. It then becomes “saboteur”, “kamikaze man”, “trepanned veteran” and “dirty girl”. These words and comparisons are so wildly out of context, of so fantastic proportions and something that one would not think of in the kitchen that though they do make defamiliarization possible, they also make one feel that Plath is so wrapped up in her phantasmagoria that she’s losing touch with reality. Perhaps the catch phrase is the first line of the poem “What a thrill—–”, as well as “A celebration this is”. The reader has fallen into the trap!
The critics from Plato to Shklovsky might all treat the poem differently. Plato makes the feeling artist important. He addresses authenticity in a work of art, otherwise artist not having experienced all that he writes about, would be a liar. Aristotle emphasized credulity, consistency, and emotional identification of the reader to the work of art. Horace and Longinus talk of moral, aesthetic experience and effect of and intention of the work. Shklovsky needs the artist to only express things in a way that arouses feelings in the audience, that his/her writing should defamiliarize the reader. Effect on the reader is important but he hardly addresses the issue of authenticity, and doesn’t say much about how genuine an artist’s feelings must be.
The poem appears credible and readers can relate to the pain of hurting one’s finger. But what if Plath did not cut herself, just wrote about it? Since the poem does arouse feelings of sympathy and does shock the readers into looking at a common experience differently, Shklovsky may still call reading it a moral and aesthetic experience. Plato and other critics would perhaps differ, and I would agree with them.
References
1. Plath, Sylvia. “Cut”. Electronic copy from question paper.
2. Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique” 1916. From course handout.
3. Plato. “Ion”. The Internet Classics Archive, 2000. MIT. January 2006
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/ion.html
4. Davis, Robert Con, and Finke, Laurie, eds. “Literary Criticism and Theory: The Greeks to the Present”. London: Longman, 1989. pp 60-83, 92-114.
My thumb instead of an onion.
Sylvia Plath in the poem “Cut” illustrates an ordinary experience, of having one’s finger sliced while cutting vegetables, as something extraordinary. The physical wound, however painful, is exciting in the beginning but the blood flow brings on an illness that is mitigated only after taking medicine. Is Plath being sarcastic, or is she exhibiting a psychopathology? Is she authentic in this poem? After all it’s just a cut. Since the poet uses first person in the poem, it appears as if she is speaking from her own experience. Perhaps she describes the common in uncommon terms because of the pleasure she is feeling. Or is she putting a “hat” on the readers making them find some meaning in her meaningless poem?
Plato, Aristotle, Horace as well as Longinus all stressed different characteristics in a work of art, from function, structure, content, to intention. They did not question art. Shklovsky argues for innovation in art, in language as well as form, and seeks to bring poetry into the realm of science and emphasizes technique. He wants poetry to shock the readers into true perception. Plath has managed to do that. Her poem hardly fits in the conception of what a poem should be as envisioned by the former four.
The poetess draws from a mental picture of the incident that becomes palpable to the readers as a result of the imagery used to describe it. The sensation of getting one’s hand cut that gives a “thrill” in the beginning later on changes for the worse and a “pill” is taken to overcome the pain. The poem is rich in its use of imagery. The sight of finger top hanging loose is likened to “hinge”, “flap”, “hat”, and “wattle”. Flow of blood appears to be a “pilgrim”, “carpet” rolling forward, “soldiers” marching on. Even the act of taking medicine to suppress the pain becomes a “celebration”. Staining of the “gauze” in blood as well is shown by word pictures. The bandaged thumb becomes a ku klux klansman, a “babushka” clad woman and the scarf “darkens” because of the stain. Plath uses images of battle and death to make the readers see blood flowing from the Cut, and seems to do so in an alluring sort of a way as if she is fascinated by it, and wants us to be attracted too. The terse blank verse keeps the poem from becoming automatic. Usage of short words and breaking of sentences make the reading fast paced. A sense of hurry as well as urgency is conveyed by the use of such words as “rolls”, “run”, “confronts”, “jump”, etc. There is emphasis on the language used, words convey the felt pain as well as the seen blood.
Dead white.
Then that red plush...
The stain on your
Gauze Ku Klux Klan
Babushka...
Trepanned veteran,
Dirty girl,
Thumb stump.
According to Shklovsky, in his essay ‘Art as Technique’, when perception becomes routine it becomes automatic and over-automatization nulls life itself. He looked at art as a means of bringing sensations back to life. He also argued for the creation of a work of art “artistically” that its apprehension becomes difficult and its effect is lengthened. He talked about the technique of defamiliarization to promote ‘true perception’ of things and emotions as against ‘recognition’ promoted by arts. Defamiliarization is “the capacity of art to counter the deadening effect of habit and convention by investing the familiar with strangeness and thereby deautomatizing perception”. This is done by making the poetic speech rough and “tortuous”, which can be reflected either in the choice of style or words used.
Plath has used defamiliarization to make the readers jerk out of their automatic responses to a poem. Choice of an ordinary incident as the subject of the poem marks the beginning of this process. Treating of laceration of a thumb may be a subject of poetry in terms of what Shklovsky has propounded, Plato or Aristotle would have hardly thought this to be an apt subject for poetry, according to whom it should be either in the service of society or give pleasure by catharsis of like emotions. Horace and Longinus stress the place of sublime in and aesthetic experience of a poem while reading it. They emphasize effect of a poem. However the experience of cutting a finger and the pain arising out of it does not appear sublime or aesthetic. Does reading this poem give any pleasure? No. Does it help in purgation of painful feelings? Perhaps.
Further defamiliarization is achieved by the use of words like “hinge of a skin”, “axed your scalp”, “kamikaze”, “balled pulp” etc. that make the readers attend carefully to the poem. Why has Plath used these mechanical words, as well as words that conjure images of war, to describe the incident? Apparently she wants to see a serious look on the faces of those who read this poem, but it could may as well be that she is laughing at her readers, making them fall in her trap of taking it seriously. It does seem ridiculous to compare thumb to an onion and skin to flap and hat. Then the chopped off thumb becomes a pilgrim who looses his scalp to an Indian and blood is a marching company of soldiers. It then becomes “saboteur”, “kamikaze man”, “trepanned veteran” and “dirty girl”. These words and comparisons are so wildly out of context, of so fantastic proportions and something that one would not think of in the kitchen that though they do make defamiliarization possible, they also make one feel that Plath is so wrapped up in her phantasmagoria that she’s losing touch with reality. Perhaps the catch phrase is the first line of the poem “What a thrill—–”, as well as “A celebration this is”. The reader has fallen into the trap!
The critics from Plato to Shklovsky might all treat the poem differently. Plato makes the feeling artist important. He addresses authenticity in a work of art, otherwise artist not having experienced all that he writes about, would be a liar. Aristotle emphasized credulity, consistency, and emotional identification of the reader to the work of art. Horace and Longinus talk of moral, aesthetic experience and effect of and intention of the work. Shklovsky needs the artist to only express things in a way that arouses feelings in the audience, that his/her writing should defamiliarize the reader. Effect on the reader is important but he hardly addresses the issue of authenticity, and doesn’t say much about how genuine an artist’s feelings must be.
The poem appears credible and readers can relate to the pain of hurting one’s finger. But what if Plath did not cut herself, just wrote about it? Since the poem does arouse feelings of sympathy and does shock the readers into looking at a common experience differently, Shklovsky may still call reading it a moral and aesthetic experience. Plato and other critics would perhaps differ, and I would agree with them.
References
1. Plath, Sylvia. “Cut”. Electronic copy from question paper.
2. Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique” 1916. From course handout.
3. Plato. “Ion”. The Internet Classics Archive, 2000. MIT. January 2006
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/ion.html
4. Davis, Robert Con, and Finke, Laurie, eds. “Literary Criticism and Theory: The Greeks to the Present”. London: Longman, 1989. pp 60-83, 92-114.
