/lit/ - Literature

Harold Bloom was a true lover of literature, but he was terribly atrophied when it came down to language and could not perceive artistic obviousness that anyone with a minimum of verbal sensitivity would grasp. His criticism is a letter of love to the art of the written word, but it’s a badly written and unproductive letter to anyone who wants to understand how great writing is created.

Bloom never analyzed the style and literary techniques of the works he studied. He produced several assertions without any proof. His book on Shakespeare is a good example. He could not even produce a single passage of analysis of metaphors or similes, or how language was constructed to elevate this or that passage. He quotes from Shakespeare again and again in that book, but never dissects the wonderful passages of poetry that he quoted. All he does is to vomit a messy broth of pseudo-psychology of the characters, make exaggerated statements about all sorts of subjects (something like "Hamlet is as close as a human conscience ever came to the mind of God") without substantiating such statements and mention a thousand times words like "agon" and "gnostic". In his reading you do not feel the slightest glimpse of the verbal sensitivity that a linguistically gifted person possesses. Try reading Nabokov's criticism after Bloom to see what i'm talking about.

To see how poor Bloom was, it is enough to contrast his book on Shakespeare with the work of Mark Van Doren. To see Bloom's lack of understanding of how language and poetry works, just look at what Frank Kermode did in his book "Shakespeare's Language."

You read Bloom and you don't learn anything about how a particular work of art was created. You don't learn anything about how the writer's style works, or how his language has evolved over time. You don't learn anything about what makes this great writer great, for Bloom can only state but never demonstrate. Bloom's criticism is a waste of time. Another example: contrast James Wood criticsm with that of Bloom to see the difference between someone who has at least minimal sensitivity to words and Bloom's neural-blindness to language.

I guess articles like these can help me to express what I feel about Bloom:


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/nov/03/classics.highereducation

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/haroldbloom

I honeslty have no idea how someone could read so many books and make such titanic efforts to educate oneself (and someone with a privileged brain, capable of memorizing vast amounts of information) still don't acquire a single flame of verbal talent.

>>14886244
>When all the artificial propping up and promoting of shitty writers under the guise of "diversity" is over, who will then be seen as a great writer of our era?

What are you talking about? When white people die out Toni Morrison will be seen as Shakespeare, and Shakespeare will only be taught in gook schools to rich kids. In Europe the only book they'll read is the Quran.

>>14824094
Brain damaged ESL animals like you don't get to comment on English literature. I bet you're German. The French can't speak English, and the Scandinavians speak English too well to make a retarded post like this. Neck yourself Kraut.

There is no argument as to why Hamlet is better than Harry Potter.

>>14536011
dubs of truth

DUDE SHAKESPEARE LMAO

>>14336282
Stop posting here you fucking ESL nigger lmao. Gerniggers are even lower than actual nigs.

>>14334507
Under 21, skinny fat, borderline autistic, right-leaning, thinks Jordan Peterson is a genius, smells IRL.

you should stretch your legs OP

>>14277784
Your entire method of thought was created by Shakespeare.

Let's not forget /ourguy/ the late Harold Bloom was a chosen one