/lit/ - Literature

>>17126988
No

>>17126988
No. He's a pop academic. He writes for the masses.

>>17126988
no, unless you think its ok for a critic to lie in their review for a children's book.

these are the answers I was hoping to see here

Nulit is atrocious

>>17126988
No, no critic should be taken seriously
>>17127005
That goes doubly for seething insecure third worlders

>>17127005
>>17127007
>>17127008
>>17127150
>>17127237
I have a zero tolerance policy for jews but I make an exception for Bloom because he is simply that based. You all need to tongue my anus and fuck off; Bloom always has been and always will be /ourguy/

>>17127256
He is not based. He is an anglo cuck who can't interpret a poem to save his life. His whole "anxiety of influence" BS is a terribly useless way to approach poetry, and his complete devotion to Shakespeare as the center of the canon just goes to show that anglo cucks who can't read in the romance languages will always be a joke.

>>17127318
Why do Anglos cause such incomparable seethe?

Listen to him on Charlie Rose,
He’s based.

>>17126988
I am somewhat prejudiced against Bloom. There was always something of the legacy-monger about him, as follows: Once upon a time, an ambitious non-creative man of letters established himself in the literary firmament with a vast and complicated body of theory, the “anxiety of influence,” a quasi-Freudian concept whereby writers are primarily motivated by a frantic, anxious desire to overcome their elders (no doubt I am grossly oversimplifying a theory of terrifying complexity – I spent about seven minutes with the book in question about fifteen years ago, so I do not know much about it). This theory was elaborated from the late-1950s to the early-1970s, when a Freudian reading of literature was pretty much ala mode in American letters. By the 1970s, his “anxiety of influence” theory had made Bloom’s reputation, and Bloom probably thought he had the culture by the balls. But as it turns out, by the 1980s, the French and the feminists and the post-structuralists were deconstructing and whatnot while Freud became increasingly debunked. Bloom had secured Ivy League tenure by then, but intellectually he’d backed the wrong horse – his Freudian reading of literature had about as much relevance as phrenology. Bloom’s “anxiety of influence” had become part of the academic mold from whence sprang far fresher toadstools of theory. Or, to wax Shakespearian, the “anxiety of influence” is but one of lit crit’s “whoreson dead bodies” in the academic graveyard, fit only to be mocked by a clown like me.

Which brings us to Bloom’s sea change: apparently realizing the sterility of a purely academic approach to literature, coupled with the fact his own theory-mongering was no longer of much importance, Bloom decided to try and turn himself into a real man of letters. And to his credit, Bloom resisted the siren wail of the theorists, what he calls The School of Resentment. And yet I find his later man o’ letters manifestations to be suspect. For one thing, in order to stay intellectually spooky, he refers to himself as a “Jewish Gnostic” (according to Wikipedia). I thought this was a little sad, sort of like those Loonie Toons episodes where we see Wile E. Coyote’s mailbox with “GENIUS” scrawled across it. Bloom’s gnosticism gained him some fans, and he even wrote a sci-fi novel along Gnostic lines (again, Wikipedia – I had no idea!). As Robert Frost said, one should never refer to oneself as a “poet,” just as you would never call yourself a “hero.” Other people can call you “poet” or “hero,” but never call yourself those things. Perhaps “Gnostic” should be added to the list.

>>17127614
I like what you said

>>17127318
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrDAkFqCEqw
I was watching this video of Bloom talking about Shakespeare expecting to learn a thing or two and the motherfucker said nothing. This is the Yale education?

>>17127005
redpill me on the Maestro meme