/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9447788]

Can anyone else not stand this man's writing/criticism?

He's in a couple of forewords in books I own, and I have read a decent amount of his own critical works.

All he does is compare on author to older authors, go off on tangents about anecdotes to do with the author, and then state which works he thinks are the "strongest".

It seems like he's just flexing his literary knowledge instead of providing any criticism of substance.

[Anonymous No.9447799]

>>9447788
I have ignored all of his academic work and used him like some cuck would use a buzzfeed "best of" list.

[Anonymous No.9447809]

>>9447788
Bloom matters more in spirit than he does in reality, its not about his opinions its about his gravitas to use as a compass

[Anonymous No.9447823]

I've only read The Invention of the Human and seen a few of his talks.

The former was fairly interesting, but not particularly illuminating. He does seem to only provide an immediate, sometimes purely emotional response to the plays he's addressing without substantiating it with anything else. An argument in itself for interdisciplinary reading. Though he is a great proponent of aesthetics over critical theory, his aesthetic readings seem limp.

In his talks he says almost nothing of value. Just reels off about being "an old Gnostic," or goes on about how there is something undefinable about Whitman which he adored but can't express. He has a great talent for speaking a lot but saying very little.

[Anonymous No.9448033]

>>9447823
I don't think he can talk either. He stutters like an autistic 12 year old.

[Anonymous No.9448172]

>>9447823
I listened to his entire walt whitman lecture and understood nothing. I wasn't sure if I was too pleb or he was just fellating himself by speaking poetically and obliquely about whitman. Got absolutely nothing out of it

[Anonymous No.9448176]

>>9447788

His earlier stuff like The Anxiety of Influence and his book on Wallace Stevens have a lot more meat to them. I think he's just tired and wants to be left alone and read Shakespeare but he's gotta publish those books for $$$$$. Nevertheless, I still like him for his passion and his hatred of SJWs.

[Anonymous No.9448237]

>>9447788

I don't know why English speaking countries worship this guy. Terrible writing, superficial opinions, LARPing as an intellectual... How do you take this guy seriously?

[Anonymous No.9448960]

>>9448176
this

anxiety of influence is an important work of criticism

I take little to no heed of anything else by him t b h

[Anonymous No.9449092]

>>9447788
>*smacks lips*
>*quotes Walt Whitman*

[Anonymous No.9449862]

>>9449092
*shits self*

[Anonymous No.9450028]

>>9449862
*pisses self*

[Anonymous No.9450504]

I own his poetry anthology, which is great. and I also ordered his book about literary appreciation in the KJV, pretty excited. I haven't listened to any of his lectures but I thought his interviews on Charlie Rose were amusing.

[Anonymous No.9450513]

>>9448237
Like >>9447809 said, he matters more in spirit than in practice. He love literature for literature's sake, is anti-PC and anti-SJW, and defends literature from those who would attack it on "problematic" grounds.

As an aside, he wrote the forward to my copy of Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism". He starts off about Frye and his theory, but halfway through starts talking about himself. It's pretty amusing.

[Anonymous No.9450526]

I read (half of) "How to Read and Why", and it was alright for some recommendations and his opinions on them but holy shit he never stops jerking off Shakespeare.

Three times a fucking page he mentions Shakespeare and jerks him off. Obviously I understand he was very influential, but he does not need to be mentioned on every fucking page. Had to stop just because I couldn't handle it T B H