[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 695 KB, 1000x646, bloom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11093174 No.11093174 [Reply] [Original]

He literally lied about the "stretched his legs" thing. It wasn't a misunderstanding, or an exaggeration, or anything like that; it was simply bald-faced bullshit.

How did he get away with this? But also: why would he do that? Surely a top literary critic can find something actually real to criticize in Harry Potter, right? So why make shit up?

>> No.11093185

>>11093174
Didn't he mean any cliché similar to "stretched his legs"?

>> No.11093198

>>11093185
>The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character 'stretched his legs’. I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.

Doesn't seem like he meant that.

>> No.11093209

>>11093174
Bloom is great, or has been, but he's also really old, and very prone to rants about things like modern pop culture. It was just a dumb day.

>> No.11093212

>>11093198
How many times does the phrase actually appear in the book?

>> No.11093214
File: 100 KB, 1317x414, Criticism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11093214

>>11093174

>> No.11093220
File: 139 KB, 669x784, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11093220

>>11093212
Once.

>> No.11093230

>>11093174
Where can I find the whole review?

>> No.11093266

>>11093214
>you cannot judge a critic by the degree to which their assessments agree with yours

ehhh
If I were to reduce a critic to a black box which with relatively high accuracy gives book recommendations which I (and perhaps no one else) would not regret reading, then that is still useful information to me.

>> No.11093273

>claims to have a photographic memory and read 1000 pages an hour
Doesn't he get embarrassed telling obvious bullshit lies like this?

>> No.11093278

Can we see the actual interview where he mentions this?

>> No.11093283

>>11093230
>>11093278
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB963270836801555352

Unsurprisingly, it looks like his actual "stretch your legs" statement was taken out of context.

>> No.11093293

>>11093283
yo wtf i have to pay to read the review?

>> No.11093299

>>11093293
http://1xn.org/softspeakers/PDFs/bloom.pdf

>> No.11093300

>>11093283
Yeah, I looked it up too. That one dates back to 2000, where he makes the clear distinction that it was cliche's similar to stretch the legs, but in a later one in 2003, where the actual full quote is from (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/)), he doesn't make that distinction clear. Honestly, it seems like this was a case where he couldn't remember what happened in the book years later.

>> No.11093310

>>11093300
>Honestly, it seems like this was a case where he couldn't remember what happened in the book years later.
So he made up a story about the envelope? How old was the guy at the time?

>> No.11093323

>>11093310
Imo I think there's a possibility that he might of actually written down the cliché's on the envelope, and then not remembered he was collecting a variety of them and not one in particular. Who knows.
Anyway, he would have been around 72-73 in 2003.

>> No.11093332

In so much of his popular career, he has claimed to have read more than he actually has and has falsely presented himself as a deep reader of everything he touches. It's not a stretch to presume he read only a bit of Rowling, selectively focused on a few stylistic criticisms, and extrapolated them to dismiss her work. He's rather lazy as a critic; his thought and aesthetic approaches haven't really changed in over thirty years. In interviews during the last ten years, he admits to rereading only certain authors, and his publications reflect that. Don't worry yourself over his opinions, OP.

>> No.11093341

>>11093266
but that's not what a literary critic is. you're describing a buyer's guide.

>> No.11093364

>>11093299
>Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.
based

>> No.11093366

>>11093214
This is excellent.

>> No.11093564

>>11093174
He also said he reads 1000 pages an hour

>> No.11093583

>>11093564
Obvious chutzpah lies.

>> No.11093719

>>11093332
>and extrapolated them to dismiss her work.
Well at least he cared to extrapolate.

>> No.11093729

>>11093341
And if you need Bloom, the guy who primarily talks about works like Melville and Shakespeare, to be your book buying guide than you are a dreg tier brainlet.

>> No.11093761

>>11093719
What use is that extrapolation if it's informed by partial, biased readings that fail to capture the goals and impact of the texts? Bloom shits on popular texts for specific ideological purposes, in this case, as other anons have already pointed out, misrepresenting Rowling and revealing either his own misunderstandings or that he hasn't actually read her. He's a demagogue interested not in understanding but in promotion of his own restrictive aesthetic criteria. As a teacher, he's a joke, and as a public intellectual, he's irresponsible.

>> No.11093774

>>11093761
The person you're replying to was joking. Asking someone to extrapolate on here by mistake (intending to say elaborate) is a meme.

>> No.11093796

Bloom would have shitposted on /lit/ like that guy who makes threads telling people to leave the board if they don't fill his criteria except he would have done it without a hint of irony and would have sincerely complained about the downfall of the 'board culture'
The fact that he has any neophytes is his wet dream fulfilled

>> No.11094089

>>11093341
Are there buyer's guides for literature that are functionally better than critics but are do not themselves constitute criticism?

>> No.11094098

>>11093220
Page six no less!

>> No.11094116

>>11093174
Harry Potter itself is harmless, above mediocre maybe. The reason people on /lit/ hate is because of its cultural impact, it started the whole YA craze, that's a crime in its own right.

>> No.11094129

>>11093564
You can't actually understand and appreciate text when reading at a pace that fast, that's like boasting that you've watched a movie on fastfoward. How could you possibly criticize style when you read and a speed that makes style essentially irrelevant?

>> No.11094214

>>11093273
>>11093564
Wouldn't that be some sort of record? He would get into the Guinness book if he proved it.

>> No.11095093

>>11094098
I'm actually laughing at the idea of a "professional lit critic" reading the first ten or so pages of a book and then writing a "review" by extrapolating on that alone.

Even if that's not what happened, the idea is hilarious and I want to believe.

>> No.11095207

>>11093323
>I think there's a possibility that he might of actually written down the cliché's on the envelope, and then not remembered he was collecting a variety of them and not one in particular.

That's still very irresponsible of him.

>> No.11095215

>>11095093
Academia in a nutshell

>> No.11095222

Adults are all bloated withering children creating walls of words to conceal their inner emptiness, so no surprise

Rowling, meanwhile, has created an esotericist fable in the Perennialist tradition; anyone who does not see her grand scheme convicts himself of superficiality

>> No.11095535

>>11093564
No he didn't. It became an exaggerated rumor at Yale and the page number kept getting bigger. When asked he said as a young man he may have read 400 in an hour but he's slowed down in his old age (and he's been old for fucking ever).

>> No.11095578

>>11093564
Pages per hour is a meaningless measurement. I can read 10000 pages per hour if I set the font size big enough. Words per hour is what matters.

>> No.11095588

>>11095222
Harry Potter is just a shitty isekai.

>> No.11095621

>>11095093
>>11095215
David Foster Wallace was notoriously distraught that a large amount of the reviews were published before it was physically possible for them to have read IJ. From what I remember, it fucked him up pretty good. I mean, more than his usual fuckedupness. Which is a bit weird considering he grew up in and around academia and the /lit/ life. Then again, this is only child narcissist DFW we're talking about here so there was probably an element of, "yeah I know they do that to other writers but how DARE they do that to MEEEEEEE...?!"

>> No.11095680

>>11095207
who cares

>> No.11095699

>>11095215
And also /lit/ in a nutshell.

>> No.11095719

>>11095588
I would agree with you if the main character was a stereotypical goth kid who learns witchcraft. But nah, Harry Potter is too boring for even that.

>> No.11095759

>>11093278
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/19/opinion/oe-bloom19