Harold Bloom as Educator

[Anonymous No.11841185]

Well, is he right?

https://kidcatallus.com/2018/09/25/harold-bloom-as-educator/

[Anonymous No.11841417]

Lol...

Works Cited
Aurelius, Marcus. Meditations.
Bloom, Harold. How to Read and Why.
—. Shakespeare: Invention of the Human.
—. The Western Canon.
Bress, Eric. Dir. The Butterfly Effect.
Catallus. 89. http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e89.htm
Dawkins, Richard. “Postmodernism Disrobed.” http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html
Ellis, Lindsay. “Why Did They Make Me Read This in High School.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvdQ2XSGRxk..
—. “My Monster Boyfriend.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YesMWAxqJ60&t=2s..
Epictetus. The Enchiridion.
Every Frame A Painting. Various YouTube Videos.
Glazov, Ramon. “David Foster Wallace: Portrait of an Infinitely Limited Mind.” http://exiledonline.com/david-foster-wallace-portrait-of-an-infinitely-limited-mind/
Gordon, Dennie. Dir. Joe Dirt.
Hume, David. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Hyde, Sam. How to Bomb the U.S. Gov’t.
—. Ideas Man.
—. Various YouTube Videos.
Icycalm.
Jolly, Don. “GunsmokeCharlie.” Daggermag. http://www.daggermag.com/chas.html (Other article really not worth it, but go ahead and look it up.)
Joyce, James. Ulysses.
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.11841605]

This is the most frighteningly self-indulgent prose I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.11841649]

>>11841417
Holy fuck they cited Sam Hyde?? lol

[Anonymous No.11841675]

>>11841605
I'm not one to talk about prose to often, but I am incapable of reading this article to completion because of how obnoxious it is

[Anonymous No.11841704]

>>11841185
>>11841417
>That, however, as good advice as it is, is easier said than done, noble stoic, because I would love to see your reaction to Lindsay Ellis’s “Why Did They Make Me Read This in High School,” one of the worst offenses from not only the anti-literature crowd, but to the entire, already-wholly-abominable genre that is the video essay.
Fucking based. Lindsay Ellis is a dumb cunt and I'm so sick and tired of easily impressed pop culture geeks praising her for doing first-year college student tier analysis of Disney flicks.

[Anonymous No.11841711]

>>11841704
Wow, you guys weren't kidding about garbage prose, huh?

[Anonymous No.11841721]

>>11841711
Oh yeah, his prose is pretty bad but he's right about Ellis.

[Anonymous No.11841740]

>>11841185
Very mediocre writing, argumentation and analysis. For instance, I’m not fan of the infection of unintelligible and resentment-fueled critical theory that has spread throughout the body of the humanities, but to insist that people who are interested in it and write through its lens are doing it solely for the purpose of money-making is reductive and absurd. This self-indulgent “ranting”, as the writer correctly characterized it, is not even remotely compelling.

[Anonymous No.11841793]

>>11841605
i guess you haven't read freezerman or whatever the name is of the games-are-art blogger whose fanbase spams /lit/ occasionally

[Anonymous No.11841835]

>>11841704

I watch Lindsay for first-year college student tier analysis of Transformers and Disney flicks, as well as an absolute fucking kino take down of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies.

Her PBS video where she says "yikes" to Harold Bloom is absolute cringe.

[Anonymous No.11841851]

>>11841835
>she says "yikes" to Harold Bloom
So she dismisses the canon?

[Anonymous No.11841877]

>>11841835
>>11841851
I just watched it. I’m a snobby pro-canon white male but even I thought it was a passably well-done analysis of the canon and canonicity. She is right that the canon has been opened up. Would you expect her to just gloss over this patently obvious fact?

[Anonymous No.11841896]

>>11841185
>"The only thing I know is that I don't know." Socrates said this, and Montaigne, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and Pynchon have each in their own way carried on the tradition. If I can only point to them and have someone follow, I too will have done my job.

[Anonymous No.11841898]

>>11841877
>She is right that the canon has been opened up.
The hell does that mean? Women, gays, and non-whites have been a part of it for centuries. This notion that the canon was too "straight white male" until the 21st century is horseshit made up by subversives who care more about "diversity" than quality.

[Anonymous No.11841909]

>>11841898
I don’t agree with the artificial injection of diversity into the canon for diversity’s sake. I’m just saying she isn’t wrong to note that this has happened.

[Anonymous No.11841912]

>>11841896
>I don't know if I don't know

[Anonymous No.11841918]

>>11841675
>But to defend myself against future righteous accusations that are the same most powerful accusations of authors whom I aspire to emulate (Nietzsche, Hyde), who, if you look hard enough, are full of love—to defend myself against these welcomed criticisms that say folks like me, Nietzsche, and Hyde, are indeed full of hate, I will paint a few portraits of persons that I know and interact with in everyday life in order to demonstrate 1) reading makes a person better and 2) behind the harsh critic’s words does not lie a generally harsh man.8

He then proceeds to further defend himself.

>>11841793
>As with regards to writers today, you only ever see honest (and good) attempts in writing from folks who do not have what it takes to really hit the nail on the head, like Icycalm (great, more anonymity) and Ramon Glazov (whose last name I am unfortunately mistaking lately with the much more to-be-appreciated Alan Sokal3), the former who gives into hatred to much without a foundation and whose stressing of the importance of video games says it all, and the latter whose passionate essay on David Foster Wallace reeks of politics and the dark side of potshot criticism (Glazov).

[Anonymous No.11843008]

>>11841185
"So why is Harold Bloom then good?"

No one is saying that, and I say that as a person that reads his books.

[Anonymous No.11843054]

>>11841877
>passably well-done analysis
no no no no.