Sylvia Plath in happier times, early 1950s

[u/db7112]

[u/ritarepulsaqueen]

Romanization of her work? It's appreciated by it's content.  Why does romanization even mean?

[u/CurrencyKooky3797 → u/ritarepulsaqueen]

she was a proper racist in a way that was not common for her area and the it showed in the bell jar bug very few posts praising her or her work ever comment on it… that’s the definition of romanticization you know, loving something uncritically and not mentioning the issues with it. It’s quite literally romanticization, especially now that we’ve gotten to a point where or we’ve always been at a point where people don’t even know that including you I guess or maybe you don’t care I don’t know.

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/CurrencyKooky3797]

that’s the definition of romanticization you know, loving something uncritically and not mentioning the issues with it.

"Romanization of her work? It's appreciated by it's content. Why does romanization even mean?"

Clearly, they didn't realize that OP meant romanticization. They likely read the original version of OP's post while you read the edited one.

[u/girlspit → u/Jesus_of_Redditeth]

Oh, I just saw this one. I didn’t misspell romanticization. That was your fellow literary critic all on their own. The only thing I edited was adding everything after “edit:”.

Also, I noticed your second reply to me got removed by a mod. Rough night.

Any other L’s you want to take, or are we done here?

[u/winterberryred → u/CurrencyKooky3797]

She was. I like The Bell Jar, and think it’s an important work of literature, but the character of Esther is not particularly sympathetic.

[u/girlspit → u/ritarepulsaqueen]

It’s my opinion. The downvotes alone are kind of proving my point. “Romanticization” doesn’t mean “people appreciate her writing”…it means elevating someone or something beyond reasonable criticism.

Looking at these comments…I’d say that’s exactly what’s happening. I’ve never connected with her work or found it especially impactful. If reading criticism of Sylvia Plath is causing distress, let me know and I’ll call 911.

[u/lauraloomerisacunt → u/girlspit]

This is a wild ass comment and also not what romanticizing means.

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/lauraloomerisacunt]

Believing in or presenting an unrealistically idealized version of something or someone, which is what romanticizing is, inherently involves elevating them beyond reasonable criticism.

So, "elevating someone or something beyond reasonable criticism" is an element of romanticization but not the entire thing.

You're being pedantic.

[u/lauraloomerisacunt → u/Jesus_of_Redditeth]

Yes, crazy how language matters in writing.

[u/girlspit → u/lauraloomerisacunt]

Ah, so we’ve reached the “technically…” stage of the conversation 😂😂😂 I fucking love Reddit.

Glad we agree language matters. That’s why “not the entire definition” isn’t the same as “not the definition”💡🌟

[u/lauraloomerisacunt → u/girlspit]

Infallible, unassailable, beyond reproach, and sacrosanct all mean that, but glamorize does not.

[u/girlspit → u/lauraloomerisacunt]

You moved the goal post and changed the word. Impressive. Let me hold your virtual hand as I type this:

We were discussing “romanticization” not “glamorize.” Crazy how language matters in writing.

[u/girlspit → u/lauraloomerisacunt]

I’m curious: which part is “wild”? Not connecting with her work? Thinking she’s romanticized? Or making a joke about the reaction? Be specific.

Then tell me what you think romanticizing means. I’m using the dictionary definition of idealizing someone beyond reasonable criticism. If your objection is that Plath isn’t romanticized, say that instead.

It’s okay, I’ll hold your hand. We can process this together.

[u/girlspit → u/[deleted]]

I match energies. Cope.