Many critics believe that Sylvia Plath"s productions in general and her poetry in particular are mere reflections of her personal and private life, which by she finds a comfortable medium to transmit her agonies and despair. Therefore, in order to deepen our understanding of her poetry, some critics assert, we need to equip ourselves with some biographical sketches of her life, for biographical criticism assumes a strong bond between the artist and her/his literary offspring. “Every author”, says J.W. Von Goethe, “in some way portrays himself in his works” (Gillespie 20); each single poem of her/his creation mirrors a certain incident or personal affair. Thus it would be easier for us to reach conclusions if we understood the writer"s world before delving into her/his works. But if we really confine ourselves to the authors' lives and experiences, the text"s door of explanations and interpretations will be closed, narrowing itself into a closed window of one conclusion opened only by the author. For more information, please visit our website: www.lighthouseacademy.org

The question here is do we really need to wear our investigation glasses and begin to dig deep down in the artist's diaries and personal clothes to gain working knowledge and evidences that would help us to condemn a work of art? Or no longer the text, who always exists in the present time, is the obedient and submissive child who obeys his father's rules and law, instead it becomes the bad boy who leaves home since the day he is born to seek his path alone without the handcuffs of his deceased past father. Issac Bashevis Singer states that "If people are really hungry, they do not care about the biography of the baker" (Gillespie 20). This chapter is starving and because of its unquenchable hunger, it is not able to differentiate between the cake and its baker, thus both plates might make the text's mouth water.