Non-fiction and The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath
             The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath, by Sylvia Plath, fit into the category of non-fictional literature. However, is there really such a thing as nonfiction? According to Webster's dictionary, nonfiction is "A literary work whose content is based on fact and is not produced by the imagination." This definition applied to Sylvia Plath's journals produces a number of interesting observations both for and against this argument.
             Firstly, The Unabridged Journals are autobiographies in the sense that they contain much information on the author's life and are written by the author herself, though they lack one crucial element of a typical autobiography or memoire. They were not written for publication, and so there is no motive for the author to purposely skew facts which might portray her in a negative light. It becomes obvious to the reader that Sylvia Plath writes "to talk this out with [her]self", and once she does "the past doesn't look so deformed, nor the future so black." Her journals are purely personal, as they are intended for none other than the author, and therefore there is no motive to lie. This proves both a more valid autobiography in the sense that they are potentially more accurate, personal, and therefore coincide more fully with the definition of non-fiction.
             In reading Sylvia Plath's journals, it becomes obvious that she was highly pessimistic, at times self-loathing, and not quite mentally stable. This ultimately affects her perception of the world, her writing, and hence the observations of the reader. The journals seem to so naturally fall into the category of non-fiction, but according to the author herself, "nothing is real, past or future, when you are alone in your room with the clock ticking loudly into the false cheerful brilliance of the electric light", where most of Plath...