/lit/ - Literature

How does Harold Bloom’s argument against, what he calls, the “school of resentment” hold up in literary studies? What do people think about it? His idea that, across universities, there has been less attention devoted to literary classics (such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Etc.) in favor of books written by authors who have been “marginalized in history” that are “mediocre”. I can attest that this is how I feel in my current undergrad experience. I got a list of books for one of literature classes a week ago and read most of them already. They all had something to due with race, gender, or sexuality, and were, in my opinion, terribly written. He has said that “you wouldn’t buy a table with no legs, no matter where it came from”, and I agree it should be applied to literature. In my experience, literary studies in the university tends to not respect or revere a novel based on its aesthetical and intellectual merits, but on the origin of its source. I would be disillusioned to say indefinitely that politics play no part in literature. But I think what’s been happening across universities is extremely concerning. Great authors, legendary authors, who are worth our time, should be read. I think reading what Bloom calls, « mediocrity », cannot be justified just because it’s by an « oppressed voice ».

I will just add that I do not agree with all of Bloom’s thoughts. I wouldn’t put Shakespeare on that high of a pedestal as Bloom would have. I think Shakespeare is one of the best writers to have ever lived, at least in the English language. But I don’t believe all 39 plays and all sonnets should be a “requirement” amongst everyone in undergrad and grad school. There are writers all over the world who are just as worthy of our time.

I hate how the protagonists in fiction went from knights, sailors, and adventurers of all forms to editors, writers, corporate employees and boring shit like that. God, modern literature is so soulless.