Celtics All-Time Greats?

Charles Barkley, the great pundit that he is, came to the defense of Celtics greatness by leaving Paul Pierce off of his list of top ten Celtics. Which begs the question: where does Pierce fit in among the pantheon of hall of famers that is the Celtics legacy and mystique?

Mattrob23 posed this question on the CelticsBlog recently.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/2/20/1319318/is-paul-pierce-a-celtic-legend

Barkley's list is as follows:

6. Bill Russel

33. Larry Bird (they call him the Legend)

00. Robert Parish (the Chief)

17. John Havlicek ("he stole the ball!")

32. Kevin McHale

3. DJ Johnson (not in the Hall. But has 3 titles, Finals MVP, and 5x All Star)

24. Sam Jones (Good choice. My favorite C.)

31. Cedric Maxwell (Cornbread? Really?)

18. Dave Cowens (the taxi driver. What a weirdo)

10. Jo Jo White (I watched Glory Road the other day)

Sir Charles also mentions Walter Brown and Red Auerbach, which I dont understand. Because, while both Brown and Auerbach did much for the Celtics and the game of basketball, they are not players, and therefore, arent really part of the discussion.

He also brings up Reggie Lewis, and Len Bias, and states that they could have been better than Pierce also, if they had lived. First of all, that same argument could be said of anything. Tim Duncan could have been a Celtic Great too, but he was drafted by San Antonio because they got the first pick that year. Second, Len Bias should never be mentioned in the same sentence as the phrase "Celtics Legends" due to the fact that A: he never played a game in a Celtics jersey, and B: his death after the draft completely screwed over the entire franchise for a solid decade and a half. "Could have beens", and "ifs" dont count in this discussion.

Also out of contention for this list are: Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Chauncy Billups, Gary Payton, Bill Walton, Ed McAuley, and Nate Archibald. Although these players are all great, and all played for the Cs, and some of them helped win titles, they did the majority of their great works in other cities. Everyone on Barkley's list (with the exception of Parish, Johnson, and Cowens) were Celtics lifers. True, Johnson won a title with Seattle, and Parish won one in Chicago, but they were in their prime when they played for the Cs, and they also played in Boston for a majority of their careers. When you say Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson, everyone thinks Celtics Legend. When someone says Kevin Garnet or Ray Allen, sure the Celtics are mentioned, but the Timberwolves, Sonics, and Bucks will be also.

Kevin Garnett won a title in Boston, and a Defensive Player of the Year award, and is a 3x All Star. However, with Minnesota, he was a season MVP, and a 10x All Star, and holds their records for points, assists, steals, blocked shots, and rebounds, and as a Timberwolf, holds the NBA record for averaging 20 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists 6 consecutive times, and is only one of 4 NBA players EVER to lead their team in all 5 statistical categories, but that team isnt the Celtics (Dave Cowens is one of the other 3, and his team was the Celtics).

Another thing that gets me is the fact that Cousy isnt on the list at all, one of the best point guards of all time. And what about Tommy Heinsohn? Rookie of the Year, 8 NBA titles, 6 All Star appearances, Coach of the Year, and he won 2 titles as a coach.

Paul Pierce, in comparison to the members on the list, plus Cousy and Heinsohn, stacks up numbers wise:

Pierce is the third all Celtic leading scorer behind Larry Bird and John Havlicek.

He has 1 NBA title, 8 All Star Appearances, NBA Finals MVP, a scoring title (only Celtic to ever do that), and he won the 3 point contest recently, the first Celtic to do that since Larry Bird won it 3 times.

In addition to the numbers... he has a pretty kick-ass nickname which also stacks up with other Celtics Greats. The Chief, the Houdini of the Hardwood, Cornbread, Tommy Guns, The Hick from French Lick, Satch, Loscy, the Cooz, The Black Hole, Hondo, The Jones Boys, and Big Red are all nicknames used for the Celtics Greats. The Truth is definitely just as good, if not better.

I think Paul Pierce has cemented his legacy in Boston. He is poised to finish his career with the team that drafted him. This is a pretty huge deal. There are not too many veteran players in the NBA still on the team that drafted them. I can think of two off the top of my head: Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowitski (Kobe has played for the Lakers his entire career, but was drafted by the Hornets). Pierce has a resume of awards that matches many other Celtics Greats, and has done much to overcome character flaws, injuries, and personal issues in order to continue to be good at what he does. When Pierce retires, I would be shocked to not see number 34 raised to the rafters in the Boston TD Garden. I mean... if they retired Cedric Maxwell, Ed McAuley, Jim Loscutoff, Satch Sanders, KC Jones and Don Nelson, they'd be nuts not to retire Pierce, right?

in conclusion: my list

6. Bill Russel

33. Larry Bird

17. John Havlicek

18. Dave Cowens

32. Kevin McHale

34. Paul Pierce
24. Sam Jones

15. Tommy Hiensohn

00. Robert Parish

14. Bob Cousy

Best Albums of All Time? I think so.

The concept of the Album struggles to be relevant in a time where the single has once again become important. Due to the ease at which songs can be purchased individually, the single has once again come into prominence as the best form of marketable music, much like the 3 minute single format used during the 20s to the 60s. The idea of an album as a complete work of art may eventually be lost. This post is an homage to the very best complete albums of all time. Much of my choices come from Elvis Costello's list from Vanity Fair of the 500 Albums You Need, and Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Albums. Im sure I missed some good stuff. This is a difficult kind of a list to make.  

AC/DC -

Back in Black (1980)

Bad Brains -
   Bad Brains (1982)
Bad Religion -

Recipe for Hate (1993)

The Band -

The Band (1969)

The Beach Boys -

Pet Sounds (1966)

Beastie Boys -

Paul's Boutique (1989)

Ill Communication (1994)

The Beatles -

Rubber Soul (1965)

Revolver (1966)

Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)

Beck -

Odelay (1996)

Bjork -

Debut (1993)

Black Flag -

Damaged (1981)

Black Keys -

The Big Come Up (2002)

Blues Traveler -

4 (1994)

Blur -

13 (1999)

David Bowie -

Ziggy Stardust (1972)

James Brown -

Live at the Apollo (1963)

Jackson Browne -

Saturate Before Using (1972)

Jeff Buckley -

Grace (1994)

The Byrds -

The Notorious Byrd Brothers (1968)

Johnny Cash -

Live from Folsom Prison (1968)

American Recordings (1994)

Ray Charles -

A Life in Music (1982)

Chemical Brothers -

Dig Your Own Hole (1997)

The Clash -

London Calling (1979)

Ry Cooder -

Paradise and Lunch (1974)

Sam Cooke -

Night Beat (1963)

Elvis Costello -

My Aim is True (1977)

Cream -

Wheels of Fire (1968)

Creedance Clearwater Revival-

Cosmo's Factory (1970)

David Crosby -

If Only I Could Remember My Name (1971)

Crosby Stills Nash and Young -

Deja Vu (1970)

Cypress Hill -

Cypress Hill (1991)

Dave Matthews Band -

Under the Table and Dreaming (1994)

Miles Davis -

Birth of Cool (1956)

Porgy and Bess (1958)

Doors -

Doors (1967)

Digible Planets -

Reachin' (1993)

Dr. Dre -

Chronic (1992)

Dr. John -

Dr. John's Gumbo (1972)

Dyke and the Blazers-

So Sharp (1983)

Bob Dylan -

Blond on Blond (1966)

Blood on the Tracks (1974)

Duke Ellington with Charles Mingus and Max Roach -

Money Jungle (1962)

Eminem -

Marshall Mathers (2000)

The Everly Brothers -

Its Every Time (1960)

Fairport Convention -

Liege and Lief (1969)

Fleetwood Mac -

Rumours (1977)

Tusk (1979)

Flying Burrito Brothers -

The Gilded Palace of Sin (1969)

Aretha Franklin -

I Never Loved a Man the Way I Loved You (1967)

The Fugees -

The Score (1996)

Funkadelic -

One Nation Under a Groove (1978)

Marvin Gaye -

Whats Goin On? (1971)

Gnarls Barkley -

St Elsewhere (2006)

Grateful Dead -

Workingman's Dead (1970)

American Beauty (1970)

Al Green -

Call Me (1973)

Green Day -

American Idiot (2004)

Guns n Roses -

Appetite for Destruction (1987)

Herbie Hancock -

Headhunters (1973)

Tim Harden -

Tim Hardin (1966)

Ben Harper -

Diamonds on the Inside (2003)

Richard Hell and the Voidoids -

Blank Generation (1977)

Jimi Hendrix -

Axis Bold as Love (1967)

Electric Ladyland (1968)

Lauryn Hill -

Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (1998)

Hole -

Live Through This (1994)

Billy Holliday -

Lady in Satin (1958)

Buddy Holly -

Buddy Holly (1958)

Michael Jackson -

Thriller (1982)

Bad (1987)

Jay-Z -

Black Album (2003)

Jefferson Airplane -

Surrealistic Pillow (1967)

Elton John -

Goodbye Yellowbrick Road (1973)

Wyclef Jean -
   The Carnival (1997)
Jorma Kaukonen and Tom Hobson -

Quah (1974)

Joy Division -
   Unknown Pleasures (1979)
The Killers -

Hot Fuss (2004)

Kings Of Leon -

Youth and Young Manhood (2003)

The Kinks -

Face to Face (1966)

The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society (1968)

Ray Lamontagne -
   Trouble (2004)
Led Zeppelin -

  3 (1970)
  4 (1971)

Houses of the Holy (1973)

John Lennon -

  Plastic Ono Band (1970)

Lil Wayne -

Tha Carter 3 (2008)

Little Feat -

Sailin Shoes (1972)

Little Richard -

Here's Little Richard (1957)

LL Cool J -

Baby Said Knock You Out (1990)

The Mamas and the Papas -

A Gathering of Flowers (1970)

Aimee Mann -

Whatever (1993)

Bob Marley and the Wailers -

Natty Dread (1975)

Live! (1975)

Massive Attack -

Protection (1994)

Curtis Mayfield -

Superfly (1972)

Metallica -

Master of Puppets (1986)

Charles Mingus -

Blues and Roots (1959)

Joni Mitchel -

Blue (1971)

Moby -

Play (1999)

Thelonious Monk -

Monk's Music (1958)

Moondog -

The Story of Moondog (1958)

Van Morrison -

   Astral Weeks (1968)
   Moondance (1970)

Jelly Roll Morton -

The Birth of the Hot (1995)
Ida Maria -
   Fortress Round my Heart (2008)

Mothers of Invention -

We're Only in it for the Money (1968)

Filmore East June 1971 (1971)

Willie Nelson -

Stardust (1978)

Countryman (2005)

Neutral Milk Hotel - 
   In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (1998)
New York Dolls -

New York Dolls (1973)

Nine Inch Nails -

Downward Spiral (1994)

Nirvana -

Nevermind (1991)

Unplugged (1994)

NRBQ -

NRBQ (1969)

Roy Orbison -

The Orbison Way (1966)

Gram Parsons -

Grievous Angel (1974)

Pearl Jam -

10 (1991)

Versus (1993)

Pink Floyd -

Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967)

Obscured by Clouds (1972)

Dark Side of the Moon (1973)

The Pixies -

Come on Pilgrim (1987)

Doolittle (1989)

The Pogues -

Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash (1985)

Iggy Pop -

The Idiot (1977)

Portishead -

Dummy (1994)

Elvis Presley -

The Sun Sessions (1976)

Pretenders -

Pretenders (1980)

Prince -

Around the World in a Day (1985)

John Prine -

John Prine (1972)

Queen -

Queen 2 (1974)

A Night at the Opera (1975)

Radiohead -

OK Computer (1997)

Kid A (2000)

Rage Against the Machine -

Rage Against the Machine (1992)

Bonnie Rait -

Give it Up (1972)

Ramones -

Rocket to Russia (1977)

Red Hot Chili Peppers -

Californication (1999)

Lou Reed -

Berlin (1972)

REM -

Reckoning (1984)

Green (1988)

Rolling Stones -

Let it Bleed (1969)

Sticky Fingers (1971)

Some Girls (1978)

Gil Scott-Heron -

Pieces of a Man (1971)

The Sex Pistols -

Never Mind the Bullocks (1977)

DJ Shadow -

Endtroducing (1996)

Paul Simon -

Graceland (1986)

Simon and Garfunkle -

Bookends (1968)

Nina Simone -

Little Girl Blue (1958)

Sly and the Family Stone -

Theres a Riot Goin On (1969)

Smashing Pumpkins -

Siamese Dream (1993)

Patti Smith -

Horses (1975)

Bruce Springsteen -

Born to Run (1975)

Steely Dan -

Countdown to Ecstasy (1973)

Sublime -

Sublime (1996)

Temptations -

Temptations Live! (1967)

TLC -

Fanmail (1999)

Tool -

Aenima (1996)

Tribe Called Quest

Midnight Marauders (1993)

U2 -

Joshua Tree (1987)

Achtung! Baby (1991)

Velvet Underground -

Velvet Underground and Nico (1966)

Verve -

Urban Hymns (1997)

Muddy Waters -

More Real Folk Blues (1967)

Doc Watson -

Live and Pickin (1979)

The Who -

My Generation (1965)

Tommy (1969)

Quadrophenia (1973)

Hank Williams and Hank Williams Jr -

Father and Son (1965)

Brian Wilson -

Smile (2004)

Wings -

Band on the Run (1973)

Stevie Wonder -

Talking Book (1972)

Innervisions (1973)

Wu Tang Clan -
36 Chambers (1993)

Neil Young -

Everybody Knows This is Nowhere (1969)

After the Gold Rush (1970)

ZZ Top -

Tres Hombres (1973)

What Books do you Teach?

Why is literature important? This question was posed in my class recently. This was my answer...

There are basically two kinds of classes in school.

1. Math/Science
   
2. Social Studies/Language Arts

Both types of classes foster the same basic principles. They teach insight and knowledge into certain aspects of life, solve certain types of problems, and teach certain skillsets. 

So, while Math/science classes teach logic, reason, hard evidence, solutions to concrete problems with concrete answers, the Humanities department teaches social, emotional, and personal solutions to ethical, moral, philosophical problems. 

This department is called Humanities for a reason. It offers lessons and answers on what it means to be human. Franz Kafka said "we have need of books which act upon us with a misfortune from which we would suffer terribly... a book must be the axe that smashes the frozen sea within us". 
The goal for humanities then, is to find that axe. 

Jeffrey Wilhelm has decided that the goal of teaching literature should be about fostering maturity.  He states, "Maturity entails, first, the recognition that you have a unique perspective and a view of the world that has value, and second, the recognition that there are different perspectives in the world and that these have value and are worth knowing about". He goes on further to state that reading can be a social experiment that allows us to share meaning.

In Math and Science, we constantly have to find the value of X. But in Humanities, we try and find the value of self, followed by the value of everyone else. 

Therefore, a good literature classroom should foster social interaction. Literature should foster discussion, dissent, collaboration, teamwork, debate. Empowering the student to take charge of the learning process and build good learning habits and a willingness to seek out knowledge and meaning should be the goal for every literature classroom.

There is a huge discussion in contemporary education about what sorts of materials should be used to teach the above skills. There are a number of books considered classics in the school curriculum which are easily recognized and are taught often. Much has been said of this "canon" of literature, and questions arise as to the validity of these books over other "alternative" or contemporary texts.

I think there are a number of other reasons why teachers now are moving away from the literary "canon"

1. the books we read in school as students are not always looked fondly on. I still cringe when I hear "Johnny Tremain". 
2. it is way more exciting and interesting for teachers to teach new and interesting texts, authors, and genres. 
3. it is very easy to gain students attention with the latest things then with anything that can be perceived as old.

However, the needs of the student should be placed above the desires of the teacher. Sometimes Johnny Tremain needs to be taught, no matter how much it pains the teacher.

So I have a few recommendations for the middle school reading curriculum. These are some books that will help open perspectives as well as deal with some very basic questions on ethics, and social norms, as well as looking at things from different perspectives:

Lord of the Flies

Bell Jar

The Giver

Outsiders

Animal Farm

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian

April Morning

To Kill a Mockingbird

In the Time of Butterflies

Romeo and Juliet

As I Lay Dying

Diary of a Young Girl (Anne Frank)

Little Prince

Heart of Darkness

There are some that would complain that these books have been taught before and don't give a fresh contemporary perspective on adolescence. and I strongly disagree. The themes that can be pulled from these novels are many and varied and are still very much relevant without being crass, inappropriate or too mature. 

Another complaint to teaching older traditional texts is that they are too difficult.

Boo hoo.

Some of these books are complex and can be challenging. I suppose if students would benefit from a molly-coddling teacher and never be challenged in the classroom in any way, then go ahead, teach something easier. I'm sure those students will receive an education just as rewarding. 

I think if anything, the central themes deal with differing perspectives and lives. and all have central figures making big choices dealing with social expectations, obligations, and social norms. Growth. change. adversity... Humanities.  

Reading is... fun!

Recently, I entered into the debate on teaching models for language arts skills. More specifically, how do we teach reading most effectively? The classic model, made famous by those ridiculous Hooked on Phonics works for me commercials, deals with building skills from the bottom (sounds) to the top (whole sentences).

In the 80's, these experts, Goodman and Smith, decided going the other direction would be better, as communication relies on whole meanings, not just parts of meaning. The concept is that regardless of one's basic knowledge of sounds, pronunciation, and vocabulary, comprehension should be the first thing studied, and then the basic things come second. This, of course, would never work in Kindergarten, but it is effective in high school.

However, because everyone is pretty familiar with Bottom-Up tactics, since everyone was taught that way, until the late 80's, teachers found themselves blending the two ideas and it has been decided that integrating the two is the best policy.

Another concept in mainstream teaching is the idea that everything has a meaning in literature and language, and therefore reading is an exercise in decoding the meaning. This is very much the way poetry is taught. The theory is called New Criticism, which i find ironic, because there is nothing new about it. New Criticism matches up nicely with a bottom-up approach to teaching reading also.

Of course there is another polarizing method to teaching reading. An aesthetic reading, instead of looking for the definite answer, one that clearly makes sense, and obviously was meant by the author, Teachers have students look into the text to create their own meaning based on their experiences, and the experiences of the author which are made known to the class through a lesson on biography. This is a wonderfully fun and creative idea, however, no matter what students come up with, some things just mean exactly what they were intended. For example, nothing by Sylvia Plath is ever going to be about pink ponies and rainbow flavoured sherbert.

The teaching landscape, however, is moving more towards open-ended interpretation, creative thinking, aesthetic readings, despite the demand for schools to prove success through high test grades.

However, because we I think, just by growing up, for the most part, in schools in the 80s,

This seems to be an ongoing issue for contemporary teachers and the professors and experts that teach them. Its nearly paradoxical. Clearly, the teacher teachers want to see more creativity, foster the love of learning, fight boredom in classrooms, and put some energy into lackluster lessons, however, the state needs to see data that shows how smart our students are. No one can measure accurately how much a student learns and retains through personal experiences. So we are left teaching to standards, measuring success through large tests that dont require creativity, or foster outside of the test learning, or care if one is bored and uninspired. as long as you pick the correct multiple choice answer. But learning is way more than test grades.

When I was in middle school, I learned more in one week at Nature's Classroom, for example, then I did the rest of the year in my language arts class. Or, at the very least, I remember more. Guess which experience was graded, and which wasn't.

I think too, that a lesson in discourse is almost a must when teaching aesthetics especially when doing MCAS prep. Just knowing that not all types of writing and language is proper for all situations may help differentiate between efferent answers and aesthetic answers. for example: the way we write in personal journals is not the same way we should write for term papers, or... a letter to my friend (or probably more likely text message) is not the same as a letter we would send with a job application. choosing to teach efferents or aesthetics without teaching the other would be a mistake.

My Boss Hates Sylvia Plath

So, my boss is a Virginia Wolfe scholar, but hates Silvia Plath. I dont know if its the crazy, bipolar, suicidal poetry that turns people away, or the way she died, or perhaps her writing doesn't just grab you, or make you think the way that good writers do. But, for this particular class I took, I had to read and write about Plath. I came up with the following, which is based on the idea that she wrote her prose from a poet's perspective, so that even though the narrative was easy to follow and often bland, sometimes there are points of poetic brilliance. Maybe if she could get her head out of the oven, she could have written something good.

Upon closer reading of Sylvia Plath’s the Bell Jar, one can find a variety of themes, symbols, and allusions easily looked over at a first glance. Plath’s experience writing poetry has helped her fill her prose with description and metaphor. Water is one of the more prevalent images in the Bell Jar. This paper will look closer at the ideas, allusions, and uses of water as an image and examine the many uses of water in the Bell Jar to ascertain the importance of this image to the complete work.

Water can be seen as a cleansing force for Plath’s character Esther. Esther uses water to rejuvenate herself. At the beginning of the novel, Esther claims to often submerge herself in hot baths. She muses, “there must be quite a few things a hot bath won’t cure […] Whenever I’m sad I’m going to die, or so nervous I can’t sleep, or in love with someone I won’t be seeing for a week, I slump down just so far and then say, ‘I’ll take a hot bath’” (Plath, 19). This seems to be her solution to everything and can be seen as a passive way to handle all of her issues.

There is evidence in holistic medicine to suggest water can actually be a healing agent. There is a theory posed by Dr. Masaru Emoto that he calls the Hidden Messages in Water. In the book by the same name, Emoto poses the idea that water can absorb and hold human emotions (Emoto). The idea suggests that water can hold both positive and negative feelings. A more realistic study had been done in the 19^th century by the German priest Sebastian Kneipp. He stressed the importance of ritualistic baths much like those used in Rome and Egypt (Baruch).

As used by Plath the character Esther feels she is truly helped by this practice of submerging oneself. After explaining her habit of taking hot baths to deal with positive and negative stressers, Esther goes on to explain that she can lay in the tub “for near an hour, and I felt myself growing pure again” (Plath, 20). Esther admits she uses the water to make things in her life disappear, if only for a little while. The bath becomes a vehicle for escapism. She states, “Doreen is dissolving, Lenny Shepherd is dissolving, Frankie is dissolving, New York is dissolving, they are all dissolving and none of them matter anymore. I don’t know them, I have never known them, and I am pure” (20).

Chemically, according to the United States Geological Survey site on water properties, water can easily dissolve more things naturally than any other liquid, thus the nickname “the universal solvent” (USGS). Esther dissolves her problems in water, it becomes her ally, she bathes herself clean, using the universal solvent to universally solve her poor decisions. This passive tactic fails Esther, however, contributing to her fall into depression. The idea of the warm bath changes from a place of quiet contemplation and renewal, to a good place to witness death. The water, to Esther, is the perfect medium to watch her blood, her life, flow out of her, and becomes an excuse for her not to end her life just yet. She muses, “how stupid I was, I had the razors, but no warm bath” (Plath, 151).

Water can also be seen as an allusion to the bell jar. Although Esther has used water in the past to her benefit, it does not always seem to be a positive force. It becomes a prison of sorts, at once soaking up depression and reflecting it back. Esther’s worst of times leave stains on her psyche like the one seen in the hallway, the “faint irregular dark stain before [her] door as if someone had by accident spilled a glass of water there, but dabbed it dry again” (23). The sickness from contaminated crab is another good example of the use of water as negative. Not only is crab a creature of the sea, living in water, but more importantly, Esther describes her sickness as rolling through her “in great waves. After each wave it would leave [her] limp as a wet leaf” (44). Throughout this episode, the water running in the sink is the only sound left going as Esther passes out on the floor of the bathroom. The continuous pouring of water into porcelain mirrors the continuous waves of sickness, which stop only when the nurses find Esther the next morning.

Water becomes its own character, in a way. Plath has given it significant time and place in the novel. It has character, which mirrors the moods of Esther. At first, water is serene, calming, clear. By the time Esther gets to the beach, the Sea is seen as turmoil, dangerous, and cold. The way Esther describes the water can be linked to how Esther feels inside. This is near when she begins cutting, wandering aimlessly, and feeling the heaviness of hopelessness, and loneliness associated with depression. Esther looks out to the sea, and shares how “the drench seemed to come off the sea floor itself, where blind white fish ferried themselves by their own light through the great polar cold. I saw shark’s teeth and whales earbones littered about like gravestones” (153). Esther gives this description of macabre which is really an update on her emotional state as cold, and dark, and hostile.

Rain plays an interesting role as well, starting with the food poisoning incident in New York (it rains during the trip from the theater to the hotel). Rain shows up again while Esther visits the cemetery. The scene begins with “a fine drizzle started drifting down from the grey sky, and I grew very depressed” (166). This scene culminates in Esther breaking down in the “cold salt rain” mourning the loss of her father, and therefore a mythical future that never happened.

After reviewing Plath’s use of the symbol of water, in all its obvious, and more subtle allusion, the conclusion of the importance of water can be summed up by a small anecdote by Esther. Esther recalls a conversation with the raincoat salesgirl which ends in the profound revelation that “no raincoat is ever water-reppellent” but it can be showerproof (166). This, more than anything else, speaks to the psyche of individuals and of life more than anything else. Esther spends the entire novel unable to rise above personal tragedy, self doubt, and uncertainty which leads her to dark places of depression and suicidal tendancy. Using weather as a metaphor for these feelings accurately describes cycles of life and cycles of emotion and shows that these things do pass, people are able to move on, to a point. But, as the salesgirl points out, we aren’t water proof. By the end of the novel, Esther realizes that after all she went through, she did get wet, but she won’t always be underwater.