I think the 1st and 3rd stanzas succeed in creating something reasonably new with the source material (which I'm sure is hard considering how famous the work is), but 2 and 4 contains some phrases to completely preserved and I think this put the piece in an awkward area of feeling more like a remix as opposed to a found poem. 

The phrases that stuck out as being *too Plath*:  

> though women adore
Fascists  

>We have lived a foot  

>back, back to you  

I agree with teasingcoma. I think this is still highly derivative of the source material, which I think is unsurprising given the methodology in creating it.  

I'm not sure what the expectation was here, that by simply deleting a few words at random and rearranging the resultant pieces, that it would create something new via some form of literary alchemy? 

Where is the author? Where is authorial intent? I'm aware that there are some attempts in modern poetry at procedural generation of a poem through systematic or computational means, but I don't think this rather simplistic transmutation of the source text rises to the level of a new work. It still feels like Plath. Just chopped up and rearranged Plath.  

In the Off Beautiful