/lit/ - Literature

>>18086478
He was salty for what Wallace wrote about him in IJ.

>>18086478
What a fucking whiny faggot
He sure talked much shite about King but never uttered a word about Ligotti who was writing in "patrician" tradition.

>>18086495
>>18086511
Cope.

>>18086549
Yea, he was coping. That's Criticism 101.

>>18086478
Wallace talked about how so much of his writing, and all contemporary writing, was influenced by pop media like the TV, and no doubt this is one of the “lack of standards” that Bloom hates so much. But it’s ironic given how inevitable it is, and how another author that Bloom speaks of highly, Cormac McCarthy, was also influenced greatly by pop art media just from a different time. Bloom seems to have some solid opinions but is more old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn than his fans will ever admit.

>>18086606
Desu Bloom hates Wallace only because he mocked him in IJ and probably for some "backstage heat".

I actually had to read Flight to Lucifer for a fantasy course I took in college. The day we were scheduled to discuss it the professor's first question was, 'OK, now, how is Bloom's novel different from the fantasy novels what we've read so far?' A bunch of people raised their hand and answered but none of them seemed to be saying what the professor had in mind. He kept saying, 'Yeah, what else?' Finally nobody had anything to say and he waited a few seconds before saying, 'Well, let me phrase it another way. Was there something in Bloom's novel that eluded you?' Silence. 'Something, perhaps, that you would have liked to see, but didn't? Something that was either absent, or hard to detect?' Ah, of course! My hand shot up. 'Yes, Anon.' 'Talent,' I said, 'There was no discernible talent!' The professor and I broke out into hysterical laughter. 'You couldn't discern any talent!' 'None!' he shouted and started rolling around on his desk like a turtle on its back. My face was red and I was wiping away tears. We laughed for about five minutes before it died down to nothing but brief aftershocks of giggles. 'Oh man,' he said. 'Good lord. All right. Remember to read the rest of it for Tuesday, and (shouting over everyone packing up) see if you can discern any talent!' And he pointed at me. 'This guy,' he said. 'Woo.'

>>18086562
>>18086606
>>18086643
>>18086707
>m-my simp daddy’s book can’t be bad! there must a personal reason for all the criticism!
Cope.

>>18086707
One of the funniest pastas to ever come out of /lit/
Bloom eternally btfo

>>18086759

>>18086755
You have to go back

>>18086755
Yes, there was a personal beef. Same goes for what he said of Pound.

>>18086771
>Bloom's ghost is shitposting
His infidel ass should have converted to Islam for Jannat

>>18086806
>Same goes for what he said of Pound.
what was that?

>>18086707
kek, the Jew who lies about his reading speed will never recover

Bloom was a charlatan. DFW wrote one of the best novels of the century that made literally everyone seethe - those faggot academics because he was talking to an entire generation and addressed real problems instead of hiding behind cold detachment like the rest of the postmodernist pseuds and normie faggots because they were too retarded to actually finish the novel. If you can't finish IJ, funnily enough, don't know whether it was intentional, but it proves how much technology has eaten away your attention span. Bloom also said Philip Roth was a good writer and came up with that retarded Shakespeare invented being human bullshit. I don't understand why people can't see through him.

>>18086606
One of those two things attempts to innovate using a common and oppressive form to fuel a new world and one of them describes the present world as-is and expects that because such a description had meaning to the individual it has meaning as art. It's notable only for its level of polluted solipsism and this is what Bloom describes, essentially, when he speaks on the lack of talent.

>>18088155
I tried to follow what you’re saying here but I just couldn’t at all. Can you rephrase or something?

>>18086478
I've never read Foster Wallace but these are some epic burns you gotta admit

>>18086707
>Was there something in Bloom's novel that eluded you?
It remains for DFW's fanboys to describe what they're seeing that Bloom didn't--at least something more than autistic chanting about sincerity.

>>18088202
It sounds petty if you know the context.

>>18088172
McCarthy merges contemporary (for his time) pop culture, living situations, and fictional storylines with biblical and literary themes. The end product is so different from either of these things that it's something entirely new. It's innovative in a way that- both consciously and unconsciously -attempts to set itself apart from its sources.

Wallace draws on his contemporary sources and life, but without a deliberate attempt to create art. He hoped that by speaking truth and revealing a sort of insecurity, the emotion and neurosis of the situation would make it art. There is not artifice to it- isn't an attempt to synthesize something new, which is very important. There's no conversation with the past or present occurring- it's a (literary) statement, and a statement conveys the views of an artist/writer rather than their ability.

>>18086707
>'This guy,' he said. 'Woo.'
holy kek.

>>18086707
Fuck, I've been looking for this pasta for a while. Thanks anon.

>>18088083
>Bloom was a charlatan.
for some reason whenever i read his essays I feel like I am polluting my brain. There’s something a little sickly about them. They’re hyperbolic and primary coloured in the extreme. Nothing resembles them in their lack of consideration and vacillation.

>m-m-muh sincerity

>>18088393
>He hoped that by speaking truth and revealing a sort of insecurity, the emotion and neurosis of the situation would make it art
literally this book. I hated it but sometimes it feels good to just wallow in negativity without direction. havent read dfw yet but honestly the way you put it, I think he might be up my alley

maybe I'm not the most educated person around but I've always thought of bloom like the book version of roger ebert: "the guy who watches a lot of movies" ("reads a lot of books").

famous for critique, and for having consumed a fuckton, too much, of the medium.

>>18089647
That's Bloom imitating Shakespeare's theatrical effect. Read Bloom for rhetorical effusions and good fun, but exercise caution with his thought.

>>18086478
Why would I trust a perverted Irishman like Bloom on writing?

>>18090475
Taipei was better than I expected but just didnt;t seem to have ambition

>>18090588
It’s still his most ambitious work to date, it’s just that Tao is a child so his ambitious peaks are mole hills.

>>18088202
I read brief interviews... A king time ago and it was meh. There's something about the man's demeanour that turns me off too. And he went on in am interview once about how using the phrase "prior to..." was a huge grammatical faux pas for reasons that I can't remember apart from feeling that they were unconvincing, and that struck me as a dick move. Ive been meaning to read U for a decade to be able to say that I have. Is Wallace still seen as worth it or is he a fad that's blowing over?

>>18090561
Yeah see;
“Bloom dissented tacitly from Stephen’s views on the eternal affirmation of the spirit of man in literature.”
-Pg. 666

I've never seen a picture of Harold Bloom where he doesn't look miserable; therefore, I do not trust what he has to say.

>>18090712
That’s a you problem.

>>18090712

>>18090644
>Is Wallace still seen as worth it or is he a fad that's blowing over?
From what I've seen IJ is still very much an "initiatory" text (though what you're being initiated into is dubious) and an object for those hostile to big books to hurl accusations--IJ is the "douche", "chauvinist", "midwit" novel, a figure of fun for those who'll never read it--but that's all a testament to its staying power. The book has the merit of being fun in a genre fiction kind-of-way.

>>18090712
The 80 year old Bloomer

>>18090751

>>18088393
idk, i'd say he's making a pretty deliberate attempt at something new with his approach to irony. you can ask whether he succeeds (and even as a wallace fan, i still wonder if you can describe his attempts at sincerity as successful--definitely in some of his essays he nails the sense of vulnerability and honesty he's going for, but with something as large as infinite jest the tone swings so much), but saying that there "isn't an attempt to synthesize something new" just seems ridiculous to me.
plus, wallace did use a lot of biblical and literary themes. again, you can ask if he used them well (and that's an argument worth having), but you have to recognize that he used them.

Infinite Jest is a very good book. It's just designed to filter people. It filtered me. I can admit that. I guess, in a way, I'm a better, more honest critic than Bloom.

>>18090742
Hide The Pain Harold

>>18090772
It’s overblown YA, not difficult at all. He talked about much more difficult works all the time.

>>18090644
i first read him as a 17 year old so take that for what it's worth, but despite being a dickhead i think he's worth reading. he was spot on about a lot of stuff (esp. stuff about isolation and the potential for numbness in a society where technology is so devoted to entertainment) and it's still one of the funniest books i've ever read.
even if you don't read IJ at least read some of his other essays, e unibus pluram and a supposedly fun thing are both fantastic.

>>18090779
IJ was literally designed to be difficult, so if you think it isn't difficult, it probably went over your head. That's okay, too, but it means that you will never be a good critic like me, and probably never even as good a critic as Bloom.

>>18086495
>>18086511
>>18086643
IJ has no literary merit

>>18090734

post tits

>>18086707
every time I read it in full. masterpiece.

>>18086495
IJ is shit.