[ 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: 44 KB, 500x333, David Foster Walrus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356914 No.3356914[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey guys,
According to Harold Bloom, Infinite Jest isn't part of the Western Canon.

How does this make you feel?

>> No.3356916

I think we've all more or less come to terms wiht it by now.

>> No.3356927

Infinite Jest is worth reading.

Bloom is smart and things but he's just one dude who doesn't like the book.

>> No.3356946

>>3356927

>just one dude who doesn't like the book
>just one dude

wut

>> No.3356950

>>3356946
bloom is just zis guy, you know

>> No.3356959
File: 916 KB, 245x285, jennifer-lawrence.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356959

>>3356927
Oh yes, his opinions are not based on scholarship at all.

>> No.3356964

>>3356959
that still doesn't mean that he's automatically right about everything ever

is kind of the point here

bloom is not the arbiter of gospel truth, you know, he's still just one guy making his own point

>> No.3356967
File: 30 KB, 200x200, 1330018286955.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356967

>>3356927
This is how Wallace fans actually write.

>> No.3356971

>>3356967
sorry if his casual style isn't sufficiently appropriate for a classy joint like four chan dot org

>> No.3356974

I agree. Infinite Jest should be nowhere near the Canon.

Hell, you probably learned about Bloom's disapproval of it here.

>> No.3356977

>>3356964
And my point is that Bloom's opinion is based on how the academic community in general reacted to the book.

If you are intending to attack Bloom's opinion you'll have to attack his methodology, not the fact he's "just one guy."

>> No.3356982
File: 80 KB, 489x366, dfw4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356982

I couldn't care less about the stuffy old kike's autistic penchant for list making or his turgid studies of artistic influenza.

>> No.3356984

>>3356971
I'm willing to bet you own at least three faded Bob Marley T-shirts.

>> No.3356986

>>3356977
no i don't

>> No.3356987

>>3356984
it's all i wear, and listen to. and then i read infinite jest. you're pretty insightful man, you should have a blog of something

>> No.3357001

>>3356986
>It's just one guy's opinion
>But his opinion makes use of multiple peoples' opinions. He doesn't decide what's influential, he just looks around and sees what other experts thinks is influential and codifies it. Therefore it's not all about his opinion.
>Yes it is.
Absolutely terrible. You can levy the "he's just a human" against literally anyone. Freud, Marx, Derrida, even DFW himself. Even against yourself. Why bother with academia at all?

>> No.3357012

>>3356977
>And my point is that Bloom's opinion is based on how the academic community in general reacted to the book.

His review of the book was something along the lines of "he can't write".

Yeah, I have nothing else to say here, Bloom just acted like a fucking child.

>> No.3357016

So far

- bloom bases his reviews on the general academic consensus
- bloom is an academic and therefore right
- you wear bob marley shirts lol

>> No.3357017

>>3356977
Not who you're talking to, but Bloom never himself criticized DFW, only dismissed him. Bloom's criticism of DFW is like his criticism of J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, there isn't a rigorous methodology in his criticism, he's just granting that they're all too god awful to warrant criticism.

And something tells me you don't know what's meant by literary 'criticism', because it's not just a bunch of reader-kings deciding what's good or not, qualifying shit isn't all there is, and it's not the thing on which Bloom is the greatest authority.

>> No.3357023

>>3357012
he said he can't think and stephen king is better. bloom is an awful critic. in fact, he doesn't even qualify as a critic. everything i've ever read of his has been rubbish.

>> No.3357027

>>3357012
>Bloom just acted like a fucking child.

It seems that you're implying he had something to gain by insulting Wallace and something to lose through Wallace's success?

>> No.3357029

>>3357027
He was butthurt because Wallace "dissed" him in Infinite Jest. Wallace, being a rather well read man himself, did not give a fig about Bloom's opinion, and neither should anyone else.

>> No.3357031

>>3357027

Yes he did. He would have properly critiqued such a successful book, instead he chose to just insult it.

>> No.3357034

>Bloom's book on Western Canon released in 1994
>IJ released 1996
>I wonder why he didn't include it in the canon

>> No.3357043

>>3357031
>You don't know what you're talking about
>I know what I'm talking about
This is all I got from your post. Try again.

>> No.3357050

>>3357031
>He would have properly critiqued such a successful book, instead he chose to just insult it.
Yes, let's ask Bloom to take all book seriously, regardless of content and target audience, and critique them. I can't wait for Bloom's essay on Fifty Shades!

>> No.3357053

>>3357034
He wouldn't have included it anyway, but there's the matter that Bloom doesn't decide what's canon, and Infinite Jest should still probably not be canon.

>mfw Tony Kushner is in Bloom's canon

>> No.3357055

I don't think a book that came out little over a decade ago has been out long enough to be considered part of the canon.

>> No.3357069

>>3357055
I'd like you to stop deliberately answering weaker arguments and respond to >>3357017 if you're going to keep up with this shit.

>> No.3357071

>>3357043
I'd like you to stop deliberately answering weaker arguments and respond to >>3357017 if you're going to keep up with this shit.

>> No.3357077

>>3357043

I'm sorry.

>>3357050

You just compared IJ to Fifty Shades. IJ was in Time magazine's top 100 books of the last century or whatever, and was the most talked about book of the year and I don't mean like Fifty Shades, it was prominent even in academia. Now tell me that's a book you can just shrug off as garbage without even giving any valid reasons.

>> No.3357102

>>3357077
Here are the words of Bloom:

>Asked about novelist David Foster Wallace, who took his own life in 2008, but who has a new book out, “The Pale King: An Unfinished Novel,” put together from manuscript chapters and files found in his computer, Bloom says, “You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.”

>It’s all a clear indication, Bloom notes, of the decline of literary standards. He was upset in 2003 when the National Book Award gave a special award to Stephen King. “But Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace. We have no standards left. [Wallace] seems to have been a very sincere and troubled person, but that doesn’t mean I have to endure reading him. I even resented the use of the term from Shakespeare, when Hamlet calls the king’s jester Yorick, ‘a fellow of infinite jest.’

Source: http://www.wwd.com/eye/people/the-full-bloom-3592315?full=true

>>3357071
My same argument holds true for >>3357017. In fact, that was the argument I thought I originally quoted.

>Bloom's criticism of DFW is like his criticism of J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, there isn't a rigorous methodology in his criticism, he's just granting that they're all too god awful to warrant criticism.

You're asking way too much of one person. You can't possibly expect him to criticize every book, good and bad, based on his own opinions and merit. That's simply ridiculous and impossible, which Bloom immediately acknowledges at the beginning of The Western Canon. His objective is to condense what's academically worth reading into a small list that is digestible by a person in a lifetime.

>> No.3357121

>>3357102
>You're asking way too much of one person. You can't possibly expect him to criticize every book, good and bad, based on his own opinions and merit.

I'm not asking him to do this. I'm asking for the people not to defer to Bloom for criticism of DFW because, as I guess you've just conceded, he hasn't actually criticized DFW.

>> No.3357128

To be in the canon I'm pretty sure a book has to be either extremely popular or have a major influence (whether covert or overt) on future culture. Infinite Jest isn't popular enough or been around long enough for either of these.

>> No.3357130

>>3357128
Don't bother explaining. It's lost on them.

>> No.3357134

>>3357128
Also, I'm not insulting the book here, it's just that being in the canon isn't a matter of quality alone.

>> No.3357140

>>3357134
Totally agree with you. It's the same reason that Heart of Darkness (Conrad's most well-known and largely considered best work) is not included, but many others are.

>> No.3357153

>>3357128
As far as contemporary American literary fiction goes, IJ is possibly the most famous and influential book there is.

>> No.3357155

NEWSFLASH
Bloom's Western Canon included books he hated or even books he did not fully understand. I'm sure if IJ was released before 'Western Canon' Bloom would have found a space for it, albeit a very conceited space.

>> No.3357174

>>3357121
I guess, but he also hasn't been included in the Western Canon, which is what this thread is about.

>> No.3357188

>>3357174
Wasn't Canon done in the 80's anyway?

>> No.3357203

>>3357174
>>3357188

Refer to >>3357034

>> No.3357210

>>3357153
>As far as contemporary American literary fiction goes, IJ is possibly the most famous and influential book there is.

Get out of the house more, mein negro.

>> No.3357218

>>3357210
DFW is a big star in literary circles. Especially since his death. Who would you say is more important? I'm (arbitrarily) defining 'contemporary' as 1990 onwards.

>> No.3357236

>>3357218
My mistake, actually. I didn't notice "contemporary" somehow.

>> No.3357242

>>3357203
As if texts can't be amended.

>> No.3357239

>>3357218
What are these mythical "literary circles" you speak of? I don't believe they're actually real.

>> No.3357258

>>3357242
Yes let's amend an entire book and shoot it off to the publisher over 1 name on a list. Do you not understand the book has suggested 26 authors at the centre of the canon - Shakespeare being the primary. DFW would not be one of these authors so I don't think you understand what little part he'd play in this amended version, he'd literally be a nice on a list.

>> No.3357263

>>3357258
name*

>> No.3357272

>>3357258
Plenty of books amend books to correct minor conceptual errors, fix typos, update it to include contemporaneous viewponts, etc., even if minor. Plus, have you heard of an errata? You don't even have to reprint the books, really.

Plus, DFW wouldn't be included on the list anyway because Bloom doesn't like him.

>> No.3357309

>>3357272

Refer to: >>3357155

>> No.3357348
File: 77 KB, 500x572, 1357150724892.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3357348

>>3357034
/thread

>> No.3357364

>>3357309
Fair enough, so why isn't it in the Western Canon?

>> No.3357403

>implying 16 years provides us enough perspective to judge if something is canon or not

>> No.3357418

>>3356946
Oh, i forgot Harold Bloom was actually two dudes.

>> No.3357430

>>3357403
It's interesting you say that, seeing as Earthly Measures by Edward Hirsch was published in 1994, just two years before The Western Canon was written/finished.

>> No.3357441

>>3357430
Sorry, they were actually published the same year!

>> No.3357674

I don't feel.