Sylvia Plath's life and poetry are strongly and clearly related. But critical focus on the biographical element in her work tends to diminish the standing of her poetry. Those who attempt to read the life through the poems are proceeding contrary to what Plath intended and what she deserves. This does not mean, of course, that knowledge of Plath's life is valueless or that it will not sometimes enhance some readings of the poems. It only means that the poems in Ariel, for instance, were written to be read by readers who knew little about the lives of Plath, Hughes, or anyone they knew. In the wake of Plath's death, of course, it is nearly impossible to become the ideal reader for whom the poems were planned. But critics of all kinds have gradually come to see that it is the work rather than the life that matters--or, at least, that while both may matter they cannot be judged by each other. Feminist critics, for example, have been easily distracted by the facts of Plath's life. But a review of essays by a number of feminist critics shows how the criticism has progressed from lamenting that Plath died too soon to be saved by feminism to analyzing the poetry in terms of gender issues raised by her work.
If biographical questions have only extremely limited relevance to understanding Plath's poetry then it should be possible to read the works without such information. Ironically it is a poem such as "Daddy," where biographical information is often seen as very important, that this becomes clearest. What the reader learns about the poem's speaker and her father is that the father is dead ("you died before I had time"); that she wanted him back ("I used to pray to recover you"); that he intimidated or overwhelmed her in death ("I never could talk to you"); that she was guilty and oppressed by this ("I think I may well be a Jew"); that she was ambiguous about her feelings ("Every woman adores a Fascist"); that he was a teacher ...