Is there such a thing/person/reality of/as a doomed genius – the tautology is simple? Take out the doomed, for we are all that, but maybe less perpetuated (although feminist in our ways) ???? psychological awkwardness/angst I think – rather than social for the book itself dis-reveals the latter – with its ruthless incisiveness and the thin veil between the somatic body and social constructions around about and within it.and what is a poet? And how to tell one when you read one? How words are placed in constructive frameworks matter? isn’t dickens a poet purely by having that genius on board? There are no better poetic signifiers than the names he chooses for characters. the Bell Jar is memorable for its mental exhaustion, femininity (rather than the feminine) and its adolescent perpetuation of the morbid – how more poetic can one get? if there is any doomed genius in it at all – it is external to the creative process within the book – which finally found its place in the poetry and the passion of her life as well as death. but i still like the word womanist rather than feminist jan – her work reminds me of afro-american writers – in love and trouble (sometimes with herself)