[ 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: 38 KB, 300x400, s-l400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18200046 No.18200046 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any truth to his argument?

>> No.18200048
File: 257 KB, 1125x2193, 3487300E-AB69-48C0-94F9-D5F383C5213C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18200048

>>18200046
Being poor wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that being poor in 2021 means that you have to live with minorities.

>> No.18200061
File: 138 KB, 396x385, 1588119399022.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18200061

>>18200046
>Bro, Shakespeare invented humans!
Do Angloids really...? Come on now.

>> No.18200110

>>18200048
I'm not poor and what does this have to do with Shakespeare

>> No.18200185

>>18200046
None.

>> No.18200266

this is my favorite book on shakespeare

>> No.18200676

>>18200046
>Harold Bloom
>truth and insight
LOL no

>> No.18200872

>>18200046
It's basically unfalsifiable. He claims that the inwardness of Shakespeare's characters literally taught humanity how to cultivate their own inwardness. To some extent there's precedence for this kind of argument. In Homer you find Odysseus sitting at a dinner table while all the niggas around him are weeping and wailing, and Homer makes a point of noting how strange it is that Odysseus can weep on the inside without showing it. He can only do that because he's exceedingly clever.
There HAVE to have been progressions in the development of human consciousness that are culturally conditions. Nietzsche talks about this too: how judeo-christianity basically forced the human soul in on itself, and made us become deeper and more complex. The question, though, is whether Shakespeare's unprecedented characters who "self overhear" actually marked something qualitatively new in the development of consciousness, and whether modern humanity's subsequent development of a similar kind of rich inwardness had anything to do with Shakespeare's characters. Was our progression caused by Hamlet and Iago and Falstaff? Or was Shakespeare's new mode caused by some cultural force, a third term, that similar caused us to develop that new kind of depth? Can't really prove is was Billy boy who done it. But Bloom makes the claim.

>> No.18201117

>>18200872
fucking pseud

>> No.18201128

>>18200046
No it's thesis is a tad far fetched like >>18200872 said.

Still a good book, read a play, read a essay. He really just read most Sheakspeare crit that came before and compiled it, useful. He also makes people seeth with his unrepentant bardoltry and I like this. If Sheakspeare sounded as natural to you as it does to me you would be one of the bard's boys aswell.

>> No.18201147
File: 21 KB, 645x973, 6ca.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18201147

>It's basically unfalsifiable.

>> No.18201168

>>18200872
Good post.

>>18201147
Fuck off worm.

>> No.18201186

>caring about a book's central arguments

The worth of a book is its sentences, paragraphs and pages. Bloom's thesis is just a focus for the development of insights. The student is the worth thing that's ever happened to literature.

>> No.18201192

>>18201186
*worst

>> No.18202754

>>18200046
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essay-archive/the-future-of-literature-in-the-age-of-information/
>This means all the old and largely unfounded prejudices against genre fiction must be set aside. Genre only seems antithetical to ‘literature’ because the literary have turned it into a flattering foil, abandoned it, in effect, leaving a rhetorical fog of self-congratulation in their wake. In my own case, I chose epic fantasy because I knew the best way to provoke readers with a narrative meditation on the nature and consequences of belief was to reach actual believers. And provoke I did. Other writers, like China Mieville, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, John Crowley, to name just a few, are doing the same thing, producing work that is obviously literary, openly provocative, yet unheard of in literary circles for the simple sin of wearing wrong generic skin. These are the writers who are genuinely shaking things up, as opposed to hawking intellectual and aesthetic buzzes inside the literary echo chamber.

>> No.18204256

>>18202754
what does this have to do with anything?

>> No.18204404

>>18200046
Sure, Shakespeare like any great author is psychohazardous, if it be considered a hazard at all, and undoubtedly alters the consciousness of the men in history who read him, and by inter-action with other men and the intermediary social structures which connect them, the rest of society as well. I guess it's Anglophonically biased, but for an argument about our idea of personality in an Anglophonically biased *world*, there's no problem.

>> No.18204529

>>18200872
good post

>> No.18206097

>>18200872
wrong