[ 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: 138 KB, 1000x646, harold-bloom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13261726 No.13261726 [Reply] [Original]

What metric does Harold Bloom use as criteria for what counts as "the best that has been written"? When you hear the works he mentions, it's hard to disagree, but nevertheless, it's difficult to even defend his position without having a rational basis to justify it to others who aren't inclined to agree on the basis of initial gut reaction that the works he elevates are truly "the best that has been written". A lot of people would argue that there is no objective way by which to judge art, and even more people would say that he's upholding some structure of cis white hetero patriarchy, or something. It becomes even more necessary upon closer inspection that an rational is not only necessary, but crucial for Bloom's defense.

>> No.13261757

Imagine still caring about Bloom and the canon wars

>> No.13261770

>>13261726

Dont waste time with him. You will not learn how the style of any writer works by reading Bloom, and he will never expose why some particular writer is great other than withempty phrases.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/haroldbloom

>> No.13261772

>>13261726
Try reading him.

>> No.13261779

>>13261726
Read "The Western Canon". There he explains.

>> No.13261783

>>13261726
You are correct OP. Use him as a field guide to good literature, but do not worry about liking something he doesnt include. Objectivity is for children

>> No.13261812

>>13261783
Subjectivity is for children. It's lazy, tasteless and easy. "Dude its all subjective xDD". At least objectivity tries to put an order to the world.

>> No.13261820

>>13261783
>>13261812
Discussing is the merits of subjectivity and objectivity is for children.

>> No.13262675

>>13261726
Imagine quantifying art. Gas yourself, you positivist bug.

>> No.13262678

>>13262675
proportional

>> No.13262679

>>13261812
Imagine believing anyone is entirely objective.

>> No.13262925
File: 244 KB, 1249x1010, 1547519353887.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13262925

>CAN'T MEASURE IT
>IT DOESN'T EXIST

>> No.13262991

>>13261726
Basically exaggeration/innovation of style, or “pushing language to its maximum capacity.” Think Shakespeare for English- full of metaphor or very strange usages (ignore the historical context for why Shakespeare’s usage might be contigent for X reason). This is why he also acclaims Cormac McCarthy. To be reductive, he wants language to be high flung, mistaking inflation of language with inflation of invention and thought i.e., genius.

>> No.13263017

>>13262991
Language is the blood of invention and thought.

>> No.13263040

>>13263017
You can maintain that and still disagree with Bloom’s view.

>> No.13263096

>>13261779
I am not OP. I own The Western Canon book by Bloom, which I have yet to get particularly far within. I think I am still on the second chapter, but it looks promising.

>> No.13263211

>>13261812
Do you know what objective means? How is the history of literature and western culture an objective experience?

>> No.13263739

Do you think his wife ever asked him if he loves her or Shakespeare more?

>> No.13263751

>>13261770
This bitchy piece, as writing, and on the whole, is a far worse mess than Bloom's is in the lapses and excesses selected, apparently, as much out of fury at Bloom's nonchalance at speculation, as his Montaigne-like autobiographical manner in weighing books. How seriously one takes Bloom's theory about Shakespeare's invention of "self-overhearing" as an unprecedented step in depth of introspection, rather depends on how persuasive the evidence for it is to a reader already on familiar terms with Shakespeare, once the theory is suggested to him, and Bloom tends to leave it at that once done with the overture. You can't have it both ways, to accuse Bloom of being assertive beyond his warranted authority as it pertains to theory, while pointing out the negligence with which he leaves it as peripheral, a matter mostly for asides. It is also instructive to compare, for instance, Hazlitt and Bloom on Caliban, to see whose take on the persona is more apt, and less distorted by what either's wishing of what they'd rather it be. Compared to the other good critics mentioned, Bloom simply isn't anywhere near as bad or pretentious or theosophical as asserted. About the only place I find Bloom clearly founders is on the shores of Hamlet, but then what critic doesn't? As for that fishing anecdote, or the persona Max Beerbohm projects when dishing on anything or anyone, let's just say that the disease of literal interpretation isn't healthy, in critics or readers.

>> No.13263771

>>13263751
>About the only place I find Bloom clearly founders is on the shores of Hamlet, but then what critic doesn't?
Are you homosexual? Just speaking of nothing.

>> No.13263783

>>13263771
I prefer the something to the nothing.

>> No.13263788

Which litterary theorists are to be taken seriously?

>> No.13263888

>>13263788
It depends on the proofs. Shakespeare's obviously severe case of anxiety in regard to Marlowe, before getting past him, is better explained by Bloom's theory than the milder and less agonistic variant he takes it from. Titus Andronicus is perfectly mad, even as conscious parody goes, and that's just one piece that convinces me once put into context. Theorists I don't take seriously are ones who, usually beginning with political wishful-thinking, subordinate the evidence of what a text does to what should be done with, for purposes not at all to do with the author's motives for writing it.

>> No.13263943

>>13261726
>and even more people would say that he's upholding some structure of cis white hetero patriarchy

Said from what said "bad" men created and shared with the world. Imagine living this much hypocrisy, day in day out, every aspect of your existence a reminder of your own inadequacies, an unrelenting sense of jealousy and awe, you desperately want to tear it all down but you're not smart enough to come up with even a half better idea and this never ending in your face reminder of reality from which their is no escape, holy shit, this must be hell on earth lol

>> No.13265559

>>13261812
>The premise must be correct because the conclusion sounds epic to me