[ 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: 22 KB, 391x376, 1348344115070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3091516 No.3091516[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's the deal with Harold Bloom? I watched an interview of him and he didn't look or sound like a human being.

>> No.3091526

He says some really bizarre stuff. But he says some stuff that's true as well. I heard an interview where he was blasting other politically correct English academics nowadays who think the chief criteria for whether someone's poetry is worthy of merit isn't its aesthetic value but whether the poet is serving a life term in the Illinois State Pen.

>> No.3091523

>>3091516
>fat people
>human

Pick less than two and keep your choices limited to whole numbers and do not choose zero or any number below zero.

>> No.3091527

Like everyone involved in post-modern academia, you either develop a quirky persona or you hit the road

>> No.3091535

>>3091516
he's a kike.

>> No.3091541

Going grey while retaining color in the eyebrows is indeed an unfortunate situation.

>> No.3091557

I like how Bloom bashes modern perverted academics (they really are a bunch of perverts) who think A Midsummer Night's Dream is about "orgiastic bestiality."

Bloom says something like, "reading this into the play might tell us a great deal about the critic but it tells us nothing about Shakespeare or what he wrote."

>> No.3091567

>>3091516
Outside of the English-speaking world nobody even knows who the fuck he is.

>> No.3091579

>Do You even Read?

No, Harold, I don't. But I least I can make it up more than two stairs without having to sit and recuperate.

>> No.3091624

Can someone give me the long and short on why this guy is famous? My only exposure to him has been through reading a couple of interviews about some book he wrote called "Jesus and Yahweh"; he came off as unintentionally goofy and not particularly bright.

>> No.3091651

>>3091624

He's undoubtedly well read. As a kid he went to Harvard (or Yale, I forgot) and then ended up writing a dissertation on Shelley and even met C.S. Lewis while studying in England (Bloom hates C.S. Lewis to this day and bashes him in a number of his works).

Anyway, he became a literary theory megastar with The Anxiety of Influence which is basically a Freudian sort of take on literature, where the poet is afraid of his predecessor overshadowing him and that the influence is too strong, the poet feels, to ever be original; so this anxiety of influence leads to him reinterpreting the work or whatever of the previous blah blah.

Also he wrote Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human which was a huge bestseller in which he argues that Shakespeare INVENTED THE MODERN HUMAN. All of our personalities and beliefs (every modern school of philosophy or political theory or religious belief) can be traced and summarized and find their fullest expression in Shakespeare. Hamlet and Falstaff are the greatest of all literary characters. Also, Shakespeare's characters are more human than we ourselves are.

>> No.3091664

>>3091567
Have you ever been outside the English-speaking world? He's pretty widely translated.

>> No.3091779

>>3091651
>All of our personalities and beliefs (every modern school of philosophy or political theory or religious belief) can be traced and summarized and find their fullest expression in Shakespeare
Hah, what a faggot.

>> No.3091814

>>3091651
>Also he wrote Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human which was a huge bestseller in which he argues that Shakespeare INVENTED THE MODERN HUMAN

Holy shit. He is /lit/ incarnate. People who think Fallout started with Fallout 3.

>> No.3091864

>>3091814
>>3091779
Most of the criticism for this book comes from people who either haven't read the book, or misunderstand it.

He doesn't claim that Shakespeare literally invented the modern human or anyone, rather he helped see ourselves in a 'modern' way.

Whether this claim is true or not is certainly debatable, but at least get it right if you're going to criticize it.

>> No.3091866

>>3091664
>Have you ever been outside the English-speaking world? He's pretty widely translated.
I'm not a native speaker.

Nobody knows or cares who he is in Europe, let alone Asia.

>> No.3091881

>>3091866
Just curious. It just seems like a questionable claim.

>> No.3091991

>>3091567

You say that as if the English speaking world wasn't the largest and most dominating force.

>> No.3092030

>>3091864

Those are direct quotes from the book.

"Personality, in our sense, is a Shakespearean invention

"Shakespeare literally invented human personality."

>> No.3092044

>>3092030
this is what the nyt says
"His bold argument in ''Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human'' is that Shakespeare remains so popular and his most memorable characters feel so real because through them Shakespeare invented something that hadn't existed before. Bloom defines this as ''personality,'' inwardness, what it means to be human. In so doing, Bloom adds, Shakespeare invented us as well. "

>> No.3092063

>>3092030
>>3092044
Any reading of Greek tragedy will show that interiority existed prior to Shakespeare.

It may have been rare, but it existed.

>> No.3092068

I think he only became known after he published 'The Western Canon" and basically proclaimed himself the arbiter of all western lit.

He stays relevant by taking potshots at the sacred cows of pop literature, Stephen King being a primary example.

All I know is I hate the fat fuck because I worked countless hours writing a half dozen books in the "Bloom's Major Poets" and "Bloom's Major Short Story Writers" series that he then stamped his name on without lifting a fucking pen.

>> No.3092086

>>3091567
in the "English-speaking world", are you including those who speak it as a second language? 'cause that's a really big world

>> No.3092088

>>3092068
Not true! He also writes 2 page intros to those books.

>> No.3092090

For Bloom, the modern human being, the modern human personality, is one that changes itself. You can listen to yourself and in doing so, you provoke changes in you.

He says Shakespeare was the first to do that in literature. Before him, except for a few (Chaucer, for example), all the characters were more or less static types. Especially in the Greeks. If they change at all, it's more a result of their environment. For Shakespeare, the changes are more from within, and as a result, much more enigmatic and can offer more potential interpretations. Ex. Hamlet has over 9000 interpretations.

That, combined with the fact that Shakespeare influenced a ton of thinkers (Freud, Nietzsche) who in turn were extremely influential for western culture and its perception of itself, AND the fact that Shakespeare brought so many words and sayings to the english language (I cannot stress just how much of the english language, common phrases that you and I use, are taken straight from Shakespeare). ex. Eyesore. That's Shakespeare. Good riddance. That's Shakespeare.

I don't think it's a far fetched claim to make that Shakespeare was incredibly influential in western culture, and perhaps the most influential for modern culture.

The only thing I take issue with is that Harold Bloom's readings of Shakespeare's plays are really hit or miss, and he's when on, he's usually just regurgitating someone else's solid interpretation.

Also, fuck the School of Resentment.

>> No.3092096

>>3092090
Odysseus

Game over.

>> No.3092097

>>3092068
> All I know is I hate the fat fuck because I worked countless hours writing a half dozen books in the "Bloom's Major Poets" and "Bloom's Major Short Story Writers" series that he then stamped his name on without lifting a fucking pen.


What are you saying you did, exactly? As far as I know, Chelsea Books Publishing tells him to write an introduction and compile essays about X author. Most of the time, they're works he likes. Sometimes, like his anthology about the Kite Runner, his introduction says nothing other than he was forced to do this and the Kite Runner fucking sucks.

>> No.3092101

>>3091866
That's probably true about Asia. Very doubtable about Europe. He is definitely well known in Latinamerica

>> No.3092108

>>3092097

He doesn't compile the essays, write the original "critical analyses," write the mini bios, or compile any of the backmatter. Starving grad students and struggling writers do. Like me.

All he writes are the snide and often dated intros that prove he hasn't read much of any criticism other than that written by himself.

>> No.3092110

>>3092096
Sure, maybe. I'm not saying Bloom is right. I'm just saying what he's saying. I haven't read The Odyssey.

Joyce would probably agree with you. I believe Bloom said that we admire Odysseus but don't necessarily like him, and yeah, I think he contests the claim that Odysseus has a "dramatic inwardness."

Bloom is almost always right when he says a book is good, when he starts to bash something, he's more inconsistent

>> No.3092114

>>3092108
Oh, really? I always thought he edited the collections himself. In that case...

What did you work on specifically, I'm interested. Do they require you to compile a certain range of essays etc

>> No.3092118

>>3092096
Can you explain how?

>> No.3092119

>>3092096
Odysseus doesn't really change himself, though. He's just like "gotta get home! hope Penelope isn't fucking some other guy! Gotta get home! Oh, you nigger Poseidon! Gotta get home"

>> No.3092121

>>3092090
>Especially in the Greeks. If they change at all, it's more a result of their environment. For Shakespeare, the changes are more from within
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Oedipus goes from a proud king to a bitter old hermit because of what he finds out about his dad's fate. Hamlet pretends to go mad/goes mad because of what he finds out about his dad's fate.

>> No.3092134

>>3092114

I mispoke. I actually only wrote Cummings, Ashbery, and Kipling for the Bloom series.

I got a little fed up getting only a "contributing editor" credit buried on the copyright page, so I agreed to write Silverstein and King for their "Who Wrote That" series, which was credited normally.

The one Chelsea House book I'm proud of is the Bukowski volume in the Great Writers series. I had six months of access to the huge trove of rare Buk stuff in the special collections at Berkeley and tried to make the most of it. The Sounes bio is more comprehensive, and the Cherkovski one has more inside (albeit inaccurate) dope, but I'd still like to think mine is worth reading as well.

I honestly didn't mean to turn this my way though, so I'm out.

>> No.3092153

>>3092114

Oh, before I go, they typically asked for 4-5 excerpts, for each selected piece, of the most authoritative material out there, which often took a while to find and assess. Believe it or not, there aren't a lot of academic articles written on (or largely devoted to) a single poem or story.

>> No.3092154
File: 47 KB, 418x470, 9542286d94ec0a7e9d9ac7.L._V392539364_SY470_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092154

>>3092134

You're Michael Gray Baughan?

lol look at this fucking guy.

>> No.3092155

>>3092134
That's pretty interesting, thanks for the post. Never realized Harold Bloom was that much of a brand name.

Well, props to the editors, cause I feel like his series is pretty good. The introductions are pretty funny if you're used to Bloom. Nice and predictable Bloom.

>> No.3092162

>>3092134
One more post on how you fell into this position? Adjunct in some well-regarded department or something?

>> No.3092161

>>3092154
loling at the post

You don't look so bad, Michael. 7/10, would chat about literature.

>> No.3092165

michael looks like he'd give me a good rough fucking, just the kind i need

>> No.3092170

So this thread is about Michael now, right?

>> No.3092171

>>3092090
>Before him, except for a few (Chaucer, for example), all the characters were more or less static types. Especially in the Greeks.
>Especially in the Greeks.

fucking literature majors, man

>> No.3092174

>>3092171
Bloom's claims. Not mine.

I recall him being pretty clear that the Greeks were incapable of having this concept.

>> No.3092178

>>3092090
What? The theory that Shakespeare invented all of those phrases has been debunked thousands of times.
Many of his contemporaries works are gone, and not much was written down. It's quite obvious that Shakespeare just put down a bunch of phrases popular during his time and place, not that he blindly made up phrases. That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard and makes very little sense given the fact that any writing with wholesale phrases would be fucking garbage.

>> No.3092183

>>3092178
This is probably true.

I don't think Shakespeare is at all overrated though. I don't really give a fuck about how he changed the language, or whatever.

Wasn't Macbeth edited posthumously by some guy who made it the extremely tight, sort of minimal play we have? I remember hearing that somewhere. I bet it rustled Bloom's jimmies.

>> No.3092184

>>3092178
This post is a shitread (please start using this)

>> No.3092310
File: 10 KB, 226x273, bloom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092310

There are few photos of Harold Bloom that aren't hilarious to look at.

>> No.3092318

>>3092310
He looks like he has shat himself and is just beginning to smell it.

>> No.3092319
File: 46 KB, 389x370, Untitled3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092319

>> No.3092322
File: 45 KB, 402x402, bbb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092322

>>3092310

>> No.3092323
File: 34 KB, 361x526, Harold Bloom (Photo by Thomas Iannaccone).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092323

>>3092318

>> No.3093348
File: 80 KB, 489x366, dfw4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3093348

>> No.3093367

That's a very unflattering picture of yourself Mr Bloom. Very unflattering indeed.

>> No.3093436

>>3092183

I had heard something similar: there was an extra scene added posthumously that involved the witches having a conversation with their God, or something like that. I hadn't heard of a full-scale editing job before though...

>> No.3093458

Bloom = Baron Vladimir Harkonnen

>> No.3093503
File: 59 KB, 500x631, 1348424707066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3093503

>> No.3093527

Why do people even pay attention to professional critics? It's probably the most useless class of people to have ever existed.

>> No.3093542

>>3093527
Getting someone else's opinion is never a bad thing.

>> No.3093550

>>3093527
Because there are billions and billions of things. We need people we can trust to weed out some of the shittier things for us, and shit weeders like Bloom do quite a good job. (Although James Wood is much better than Bloom.)

>> No.3093648

>>3091567
Any well-read philologist in Spain would know him, at least, for The Western Canon.

>> No.3093687

>>3093527
We need them, the problem is that 99% of them are just a bunch of idiots who seek attention for them/their work instead of being the channel or the way to get to authors, or movies or music. This is very well seen in cinema criticism where most critics just say their oppinion based on their personal taste, not on any theory or trend or canon. This is very laughable. Yet, professional critics, the ones that use theory, tradition, the canon or whatever needed, to value the work of art, those are very respectable. They help us understanding, sharing, comparing or acquiring new readings to a book or to a song apart from giving us the hints to rate them. Paper-based literature critics are like these ones in most cases because they are philologists or researchers who do criticism, just a few are faggots who perform intrusismo and express their oppinion, but that's all, their oppinion, nothing academic. On the internet is the other way round, just like for cinema or music, faggots saying their opinion, both in paper or online.

>> No.3093712

The question is, should I read The Western Canon?

>> No.3093719

>only wrote one book
>it was fanfiction
>and terrible

>> No.3093721

>>3093719
explain yourself

>> No.3093722

>>3093719
You're mistaken, Anonymous. He's written numerous books.

>> No.3093732
File: 120 KB, 194x300, dfw3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3093732

>>3093727

>> No.3093728

>>3093721
He's talking about Bloom's sequel to the sci-fi/fantasy novel A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay.

>> No.3093727

>>3093722
and it was not fanction. 2 statements wrong, what can we expect from his last one?

>> No.3093736

>>3093719
I've actually heard it's pretty good. Have you read it?

>> No.3093745

>>3093728
>>3093736

Being him a tough critic to others, I don't think he would write or publish something without being so critical to himself. It's got to be, at least, decent. Sadly enough, to write you do not only need knowledge but talent and without that you cannot write something wonderful, but you can write something somewhat good. He wouldn't display himself laughable with a shitty book, I'd say, despite I haven't read it.

>> No.3093777

>>3093736
>>3093745
It's fucking shite. Almost as bad as his laughable "criticism" (read: cheerleading).

>> No.3094513

Fuck humans.

>> No.3094520

>>3092101
yurop lit scholar here, never eard o the cunt

>> No.3094526

>>3091523
>Pick less than two and keep your choices limited to whole numbers and do not choose zero or any number below zero.
I choose i

>> No.3095444

>>3093777
I like his cheerleading, lol.

>> No.3095446

He cheerleads with a lot of passion

>> No.3095462

>>3094526
Haha yeah, dumbass didn't know enough about math to just say 'positive integers less than two', lol