/lit/ - Literature

Started reading "The Western Canon" by Harold Bloom. Bloom's thesis seems pretty stupid to me.
I'm no stranger to the whole "feminists are destroying literature!" argument, even if I don't fall in that camp (or really have a horse in that race at all). But Bloom seems to be taking it to another level, claiming that "the Canon" cannot have anything to do with society or politics, and can only be read for the purpose of solitary aesthetic pleasure. Am I getting that right? He just comes across as very aggrieved and angry, and that anger seems to have driven him to a reactionary and absurd definition of what books can be considered important to Western literature. I have heard of Bloom before reading this book, and I'm not the sort of person to criticize him for including mostly white male authors in his "Canon". But this whole view that aesthetic beauty is the only important factor in literature is so silly and myopic. Books are all written in a specific context, and the politics/society that inform that context can absolutely be a factor in the importance and influence of that literature.

O cry, of the milk morning
Does a cattle matron adorn
The brand of Sadom Roland
Lord in all of pastures more

And in these rolling greens
All about cows squat though fare
Lord Roland calls out for thee
And tastes the dairy air

Let me see those opening paragraphs.

ask bloomio

characters > critics

>>9677491

What do you mean by fun? Honestly, because it's not always the same thing as enjoyment or satisfaction.

It my estimation, reading isn't inherently fun, it takes a lot effort and concentration. But it can be more enjoyable and satisfying and rewarding than almost anything else. I read for those things, but not for fun.

If you want to talk about books make a thread about a book instead of some meta-thread about /lit/ being the "nadir" of literary discussion. You can't even ask a half decent question, so who are you to judge?

>>9576324
Bloom adores loads of post-Shakespearean literature. I think he just sees everyone after Shakespeare as being poetically indebted to him, since he's written inside-and-out most of all a writer can ever write about regarding the human self. Don't know this yet for myself, since I haven't read most of Shakespeare

While interesting, this list cant have anyones favourite books of 2017 as its not even half over fuckwit.
If you were the same shit that made the one last year, why make it 6 months early?
Was it some attempt to get attention and lots of (you)s?

So, I go to my local Half Price Books, and whaddya know- three books by pic related are marked down in price to $3.99. What am I in for? Should I even bother with Hawold Boom?

>>9387430
>>9389178
How is 'The Western Canon'?
Are they good discussions of the authors?

>>9378579
kek
>mfw

Who else /superiorintelligence/ here? It's sad how the world is not built for us beings of higher consciousness. How does one withstand this lonely feeling of absolute superiority?

>>8275570

Recently i read Bloom's Canon, it was mostly "muh Shakespeare" and when he didn't know what to add, he simply compared the author with Shakespeare. So yeah, i'd say you are right.

Hey /lit/, I have a question that might be dumb. How is it exactly that poetic forms are created, and what constitutes a legitimate form? I've finally decided to buckle down and study forms, and think that I understand their purpose: that certain forms are better at conveying certain effects in an organized manner. However, how is it that these poets construct these forms in the first place? For example, how is it that Arnaud Daniel created the Sestina, and how is it that poets decided that it was a legitimate form? The Sestina seems almost like an arbitrary sort of mathematical pattern, and though I like the almost dreamlike effect it has, I wonder about the thought process behind its construction. Do poets find that a form is legitimate as long as there is a pattern? I hope this makes sense.

/lit/, how do I become based like this mensch?