How to Read and Why

Jan 04, 2013 Riku Sayuj rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book has come by some harsh criticism, especially by eminent reviewers like Terry Eagleton and fellow goodreaders. In spite of the bad reviews by goodreaders I usually take at their word, I decided to give the book a chance. With Bloom’s combination of ideas such as Shakespeare being the progenitor of all modern fiction and poetry, of the bard also being the inventor of ‘Human” in literature and with Bloom's audacious theory on all literary works being nothing more than a sort of plagiarism...more
This book has come by some harsh criticism, especially by eminent reviewers like Terry Eagleton and fellow goodreaders. In spite of the bad reviews by goodreaders I usually take at their word, I decided to give the book a chance. With Bloom’s combination of ideas such as Shakespeare being the progenitor of all modern fiction and poetry, of the bard also being the inventor of ‘Human” in literature and with Bloom's audacious theory on all literary works being nothing more than a sort of plagiarism or a creative misreading of earlier efforts, I was sure that at the very least I would get some interesting things to read about the thirty odd literary masterpieces (and forty odd authors) that he endeavors to discuss in the book.

One of the major criticism leveled at the book by most of the reviewers I found on goodreads was about how most of his discussions on various books, especially of short stories and poems, were just recapitulations of the plots and the verses and then some banal commentary on how good they were or how moving they were. This is well captured by Terry Eagleton when he says that Bloom has now fallen into the “quote-and-dote” school of criticism. In one of his most stinging passages he remarks:

“Why does Bloom need to augment the self? 'We read,' he suggests, 'not only because we cannot know enough people, but because friendship is so vulnerable, so likely to diminish or disappear, overcome by space, time, imperfect sympathies and all the sorrows of familial and passional life.' It sounds as though Harold is a bit short of mates and reads to make up for it. Perhaps he alienates them by his repeated chanting of excessively long poems.”

Turns out that the fundamental problem with the book is that it is not an essay on how to read or on why to read but it is a book about books, a book by a passionate reader about the books he loves the most - the best sort there is. It does not teach you how to read books but it is an exercise on how to talk about books you have read, how to love them, how to re-read them and how to reminisce about those old companions in the most intelligent and enamored fashion. That is what bloom demonstrates.

This book is an exercise in love - a reader talking about what he loves to read and why, converted forcefully into a book on how and why another should read - and this I feel was the reason the book got all its bad reviews. It built up the wrong expectations. Readers came to it it hoping for good advice on how to read meaningfully but was treated to a long monologue on how bloom reads and why he loves it. With a better title and an explanatory subtitle, the same readers might have loved the same book that they criticized so much. Luckily for me, I did not go into it hoping for someone to teach me how to read or wondering why I should read, I am getting by well enough on those fronts; I went in hoping to discuss some of these great books and I got exactly that - a nice conversation with someone who loves books, the very best of pleasures that a reading life offers.

Ultimately, my biggest complaint is about how short the book is, how perfunctory it is - glossing over Blake and Chekov and others in the space of a few pages and treating only the smallest possible sample of their works (one). I have a strong feeling that the title of the book was fixed around midway through its writing, because from then on, probably following his editor’s orders, Bloom takes to ending each chapter with the questions of the book title, the “how” an the “why” of reading, and mostly the answers he provides are platitudes that only serve to irritate the serious reader who wants only to talk on about his favorite books and not wait for the author to come back to the discussion after giving a small meaningless speech to the public like an advertisement that intrudes on it. It feels like a sell-out and cheapens the experience.

I did not mind the many shortcomings of the book, it reminded me of old friends and gave me a few good insights from the texts quoted and many more from my own memories of reading and most valuably, it made me think of why I read them, what I experienced then and how I was changed by each of the readings. That was the great pleasure Bloom gave to me while I put up with his “teenage groupie” sticky sentimentality about shakespeare and repeated admonitions to read poems aloud or to read to ‘expand one’s consciousness’. The “how” to read part of the book is stifling and pedantic and the “why” part of the title does not get much attention but Stuart Jeffries captures it brilliantly when he says: “Ultimately the intellectual and the sensual are married in Bloom's notion of reading as a difficult pleasure. He calls this "the reader's Sublime". It is the closest to secular transcendence that we may achieve in this life - it helps us get beyond despair, loss and death. The cultivation of that difficult pleasure, finally, is why we should read.”

You don’t have to agree with Bloom’s views to enjoy the book because the book is just a shared exercise in enjoying other books - you just need to have a love for the same books that Bloom discusses and the patience to put up with some commercial asides and the rest will take care of itself.

If you have read and enjoyed most of the books discussed, pick up the book and read it to reminisce with a fellow reader and you are bound to enjoy most parts of it. Bloom’s love of great literature being so contagious, it might even send you anew to Proust, to Ibsen, to Borges, to Italo Calvino, to Pynchon, to Emily Dickenson and most importantly to Shakespeare. But, if you have read very few of the works discussed and pick up the book to find a reason why you should read them, you will probably hate this book and also stay away from the wonderful classics discussed, and there could be no greater tragedy. With that caveat, take my five-star rating and my complete recommendation for reading this book.(less)

45 likes · like · see review

Nov 25, 2012 Steve aka Sckenda rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history-world, about-books, writers, writing, criticism

Why do we read? We are lonely. According to literary critic Harold Bloom, we read because we cannot know enough people, and reading returns us to “otherness.” [ I think he means that reading introduces us to a variety of people and of experiences that we would never encounter in a normal life span.] Imaginative literature is otherness, and as such makes us less lonely. Thus, reading well is one of the great pleasures that solitude can afford, and it is one the most healing of pleasures.

Second...more

38 likes · like · see review

Apr 11, 2013 thegift rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: literature, nonfiction

more how to read what harold bloom reads. i agree with idea reading is ultimately private, not necessarily socially ameliorative, nor productive of greater mind or heart, but also that it is more that people read that is important rather than set texts must be read. most texts chosen i have read, some with less impact than suggested, some i have not read or remember only vaguely…

i do not read poems much, i value plays in production not text. no surprises, no texts that are not eurocentric or ame...more

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 19, 2012 agent zero rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Breve test di controllo sulla assimilazione degli argomenti dibattuti nel volume.

Se alla fine del libro:

ipotesi a)
brucerete la vostra biblioteca per non correre il rischio di contaminare l'opera completa di Shakespeare da pericolosi influssi pre-shakespeariani, post-shakespeariani o (orrore!) anti-shakespeariani,
ovvero,
avvierete le pratiche per la modifica del vostro nome o cognome (fa lo stesso) in Shakespeare,
ovvero,
ucciderete, stuprerete, mutilerete nel nome di Shakespeare,
il libro avrà raggi...more

4 likes · like · see review

Oct 07, 2008 matthew marked it as to-read Recommends it for: nonagenarian bibliophiles and people who think shakespeare is the SHIT

Shelves: couldnt-get-through

i love harold bloom. i just read all his stuff. i had to stop reading this one, though, because, essentially, you have to've read everything that bloom's read to appreciate it, and i'm not quite yet that old. it really should be entitled "how to reread and why", 'cause the book is one ginormous spoiler. he really really really loves shakespeare, too, and he doesn't let ye forget it! i'll come back to it in some years. he's still a great writer.

7 likes · like · see review

Aug 01, 2007 Evan Elizabeth Harder added it

well, he's kind of a windbag...but, it's interesting

3 likes · like · see review

Dec 09, 2011 mohamed mostfa rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

للأسف الشديد فأن المؤلف اخفق للغايه فى هذا الكتاب وهذا من وجهة نظرى للأسباب الأتيه

اولا ... اسم الكتاب هو ( كيف نقرأ ولماذا ) وللأسف فأن مضمون الكتاب جاء مغايرا لهذا الاسم . فعندما يقع نظر الانسان على هذا العنوان لأول مره يذهب تفكيره فى ان المحتوى يتحدث عن القراءة وكيفيتها مثل الاقتناء والتركيز والمقارنه بين الكتاب ومثيله الخ الخ الخ ... ولكن للأسف فأن الكتاب يتضمن نقد ادبى قد كتبه الدكتور هارولد بلوم للعديد من الاعمال الادبيه الغربيه من القصص القصيره الى الروايات الى المسرحيات الى القصائد الشعر...more للأسف الشديد فأن المؤلف اخفق للغايه فى هذا الكتاب وهذا من وجهة نظرى للأسباب الأتيه

اولا ... اسم الكتاب هو ( كيف نقرأ ولماذا ) وللأسف فأن مضمون الكتاب جاء مغايرا لهذا الاسم . فعندما يقع نظر الانسان على هذا العنوان لأول مره يذهب تفكيره فى ان المحتوى يتحدث عن القراءة وكيفيتها مثل الاقتناء والتركيز والمقارنه بين الكتاب ومثيله الخ الخ الخ ... ولكن للأسف فأن الكتاب يتضمن نقد ادبى قد كتبه الدكتور هارولد بلوم للعديد من الاعمال الادبيه الغربيه من القصص القصيره الى الروايات الى المسرحيات الى القصائد الشعريه
وكان من الافضل ان يكون اسم الكتاب ( دراسات نقديه فى الادب الغربى ) او ( اطلاله نقديه على ادب الغرب ) ولكن الاسم الذى صدر به الكتاب ليس له اى علاقه بالمضمون . وهذا فى رأيى اكبر سلبيات الكتاب

ثانيا ... المؤلف يتمتع بقدر عالى من التشاؤم مما اثر على الجو العام للكتاب وظهر هذا بوضوع فى الفصل الخاص بالقصص القصيره

ثالثا ... اسلوب المؤلف اتسم بعدم الوضوح والتشتت فمثلا حينما يقوم بوصف روايه يقوم بذكر معلومات عن المؤلف ثم يكتب فقره عن ملخصها ثم يذكر بعض الاراء النقديه عن الروايه ثم يعود لذكر معلومات عن المؤلف ! وهكذا فأدى هذا الاسلوب الى عدم وضوح افكار الكتاب وبالتالى الى تشتيت القارىء

لهذه الاسباب مجتمعه لم يعجبنى الكتاب ولم يقنعنى

كتبت هذا التعليق بعد اطلاعى على الطبعه العربيه من الكتاب المسماه ( كيف نقرأ ولماذا) ... من ترجمة نسيم مجلى وهى الطبعه الأولى وصدرت عن المشروع القومى للترجمة الكتاب رقم 1438 فى عام 2010 ميلاديه
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 31, 2013 Mohamed Ateaa rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: owned

بعض تعليقات علي الكتاب و افكار جاءت علي نفس فكرته قد تعجبكم و تشجعكم علي قراءة الكتاب

(1)
لماذا نقرأ ؟
- اجابات خاطئة : لان القراءة تجعلنا نبدو مثقفين (لا مثقفين)
القراءة لا تثقف احد يمكنك ان تقرأ اطنان من الكتب دون ان تعي حرف واحد و يمكنك ان لا تقرأ و تكون جد مثقف - هي عملية عقلية ف المقام الاول لكن ف الغالب من يقرأون يتم تثقيفهم ذاتيا
- اجابات مبتسرة : لان القراءة مفيدة
القراءة لا تفيد الا من يريد ان يستفيد كم من مرة قرأ البعض الكثير من الكتب دون ان يفقهوا شيء و لم يستمتعوا اطلاقا - وكم من قليل قرأ...more

3 likes · like · see review

Aug 09, 2012 Bookseller Cate rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: subject-reading, subject-literature

I am always eager to read a book that purports to encourage reading within the general population. Bloom certain encourages reading, but his text How to Read and Why assumes that the reader is already well versed in the classics. Plots of classic novels and plays are referred to in shorthand; Bloom makes innumerable comparison to Shakespeare's Iago without ever mentioning the plot of Othello. Luckily for me, I've read enough of his sources to have gleaned a good deal from Bloom's book, but I was...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 14, 2011 Allie rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, essay

Mega Yale lit. critic Harold Bloom is a well-read, intelligent reader with a consciousness & love for good literature, which I admire. I enjoyed his enjoyment of reading, his philosophy of reading, and message on the importance of solitary reading & reading quality lit., all of which will positively influence the way that I approach reading, and I am very grateful for it. This said, I had just a few issues:

(1) I feel that the book is more of a personal work for him; it's more like "I'm R...more Mega Yale lit. critic Harold Bloom is a well-read, intelligent reader with a consciousness & love for good literature, which I admire. I enjoyed his enjoyment of reading, his philosophy of reading, and message on the importance of solitary reading & reading quality lit., all of which will positively influence the way that I approach reading, and I am very grateful for it. This said, I had just a few issues:

(1) I feel that the book is more of a personal work for him; it's more like "I'm Really Old (69 when this book was published) and Here's What I Think Is the Best Out of What I've Read Along With Some of My Reflections On It, + An Essay On Why I Think You Should Read In General." I.e. it mostly = his commentary on what he considers to be the best literature. It's like his own special anthology of exemplary works, all with insightful but rather aimless annotations. They claim to be united by the purpose of showing us "how to read," but they don't really do that. So I would've felt better had he fulfilled the purpose that he professes with the title & intro.

(2) Given that this is essentially a personal anthology (while proclaiming larger purposes in its intro), it clearly favors Bloom's area of total expertise, which is the Western canon. (He even wrote a book called, The Western Canon. Which I should prolly check out.) Sometimes he'll make big statements such as Best Novel Ever and Best African-American Novel. He always tells us when he has chosen books that are his favorites, but at the same time he kinda blurs "my favorite" with "the absolute best of this author."

Another thing is that he irritatingly & endlessly exalts Shakespeare, who is named & referenced in every chapter multiple times, and other people's stuff had to be described as "Shakespearean," as if Shakespeare invented literature. This book could also in part be "Random Comments About How Shakespeare Is Related To Any Literature You Will Ever Read."

These things aside, I'm glad that I spent time with this book. I will for sure use his list as a guide for future readin'.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 08, 2013 Micah Fretz rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is a fantastic book for any novice reader such as myself. Harold Bloom is such a well read individual. He speaks of his favorite authors with such passion that you can’t help but get sucked in to his world. I listened to this book via audio-recording which made my commute going and coming from work almost bearable. I’m pretty sure I would have become quite bored with many parts of the book if I would have read it so I would definitely recommend the audio book. Bloom had some absolutely beau...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 01, 2010 Emily rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2010

I thought there were a lot of smart, astute observations although Bloom, possibly being the most well-read person alive today, has no qualm with telling you exactly what he thinks is good and what is garbage and what you should read and why and how you should read it. As a premise, this sounds nosy and elitist but I didn't find it off-putting. I actually found a lot of great insight in his short explications. More than any observation about a work in particular, it was Bloom's personal experienc...more I thought there were a lot of smart, astute observations although Bloom, possibly being the most well-read person alive today, has no qualm with telling you exactly what he thinks is good and what is garbage and what you should read and why and how you should read it. As a premise, this sounds nosy and elitist but I didn't find it off-putting. I actually found a lot of great insight in his short explications. More than any observation about a work in particular, it was Bloom's personal experience and observations that I found most intriguing.

Bad writing is all one; great writing is scandalously diverse, and genres constitute authentic divisions within it.

This notion makes me think of a lot of the food literature I've read in the last two years. All fast food is the same. It's all processed corn, but real diversity and delicacy comes from species variety in local and heirloom farming, careful preparation, and mindful consumption.

"[It:] makes me wish I could be more myself. But that, as I argue...is why we should read, and why we should read only the best of what has been written."

Good literature makes you wish you could be more yourself. The number of books an individual can read (no matter how avid) is finite much like the number of meals you can eat is finite... three meals a day for (x) number of years... If you only get (x) amount of books, food, or whatever shouldn't we consume mindfully? Do and have and be and read only the best we can while we're still doing it?

"We read deeply for varied reasons, most of them familiar: that we cannot know enough people profoundly enough; that we need to know ourselves better; that we require knowledge, not just of self and others, but of the way things are. Yet the strongest, most authentic motive for deep reading of the now much-abused traditional canon is the search for a difficult pleasure..."

"To read in the service of any ideology is not to read at all."

Bloom assumes a lot about your literary background, but even if you haven't read most of the books he speaks about, but don't let it intimidate you.

P.S. Bloom is obsessed with Shakespeare to say the very least. (I'm not saying it's not justified... but that it's a little overwhelming. Just sayin.)(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 12, 2007 Anthony rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Aspiring lit snobs, masochists

Shelves: given-up-on

Really dull and pedantic view of literature, IMO. On the one hand, it purports to explain why one should read (I'll save you the time and money-- read for enjoyment). On the other hand, it contains many references to literature that it makes almost no sense to read it unless you have already read the copious books Prof. Bloom makes reference to. All of this begs the question: To whom is this book targeted? I humbly suggest: To no-one in particular.

As someone who posits that literature should be...more

9 likes · like · see review

Jun 23, 2010 Emily rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

I felt like I was back in my freshman literature class. And that's not really a good thing. While I liked what Bloom had to say on some of the works with which I'm familiar (mostly the novels and plays), I think the title is misleading. I can't say that I learned anything about *how* to read from this book. Maybe some of the *why*, mostly from the prologue: it's a solitary pleasure, to diminish loneliness, for and in our own interest, to prepare ourselves for change, to weigh and consider, to st...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 02, 2010 Riah rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Any bibliophile; Literary buffs

Shelves: non-fiction, lit-review, favorites

This is one of my absolute favorite books. It is a psychological perspective of becoming a bibliophile. Even deeper, though, it explicitly describes how we become connected to a story, a character, a moment. How does reading turn into experiencing? Why does it happen? What do author's do to make sure you love the experience or at least remember it forever? Why do we strive to gain this experience? What characters should we turn to so we can meet that need? These are the questions and answers of...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 20, 2008 Nickie rated it 3 of 5 stars

Oh darn, I just typed a whole lot and lost it. I had hoped that this would be about skills to improve my reading and comprehension. It seems more along the lines of why you must read the work of certain authors.

However I do like why Bloom wants us to read. And I think the big point he says is to read so that we can:
1. Weigh and consider what it is we are reading.
2. Read to prepare ourselves for change.
3. Read to form our own judgments and opinions.
4. Read to strengthen ourselves.
5. Read to l...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Greg rated it 4 of 5 stars

This should really be required reading (and I've heard it is) for anyone, anywhere.

The book itself is just a collection of authors and their works, and suggestions for which of their works to read and what points to look out for in those works.

The really great stuff is stuffed inside of those observations, though, as Bloom wonders aloud in text about the current state of reading in our society. One wonders whether Bloom is simply looking through the always dark lens of old age upon the youths of...more This should really be required reading (and I've heard it is) for anyone, anywhere.

The book itself is just a collection of authors and their works, and suggestions for which of their works to read and what points to look out for in those works.

The really great stuff is stuffed inside of those observations, though, as Bloom wonders aloud in text about the current state of reading in our society. One wonders whether Bloom is simply looking through the always dark lens of old age upon the youths of our generation, but his observations hit so squarely on our foreheads that I think we have to conclude that he has real insight.

In particular, his feelings on whether to interpret the Western canon ideologically should not be missed by anyone who intends to truly communicate with those authors. He takes particular umbrage against feminist railings against works pre-dating our modern conception of what gender equality ought to look like, and how much rage is appropriate if those standards are transgressed. In particular, he questions whether one should be reading Ibsen or Austen through a feminist lens, as many do.

He also seems a bit distraught with the state of African-American literature, which he views as so transparently ideological that it deforms the work artlessly. Though he doesn't say in particular what causes this deformation, he notes that books that seem to have designs on their reader are rarely of the subtlety and insight of the rest of the canon, and tend to feel out of place alongside the works of Dostoevsky, Chekhov, or Melville.

I may agree more rapidly with him than would be prudent, because his thoughts resonated so clearly with many of my own (despite my disagreeing in some particulars about which are the best works). But I think they're worth considering, especially as a counterpoint to the way that I was taught to read literature (and the way I assume many others were taught to read it as well). In my schooling, every book had a "theme" or a "message" to be found. When we resisted this teaching, our grades fell. But I was always suspicious of whether we were truly reading what the author had written, or reading our own ideas on top of the book. Harold Bloom has sympathy for this concern, so I think those reading in the modern mode of rampant symbolism and political themes would be well-advised to read this book.(less)

like · see review

Dec 19, 2012 John rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: People with a sound literary background

Before getting this book from the library, I had heard of Harold Bloom, but I had never read any of his books. Most of what I'd heard was positive so I was really looking forward to reading How to Read and Why.

But, alas, I was not prepared for Bloom's massive erudition, and his prologue pretty much finished me off. Consider, for example, this sample from page 23 of the Scribner edition, "Value, in literature as in life, has much to do with the idiosyncratic, with the excess by which meaning gets...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 29, 2012 Nikhilesh rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: every bibliophile

Shelves: on-hold, all-time-favourites

Every reader should read this book. Harold Bloom seems to have as many admirers as the detractors, for various reasons, but he makes makes sense to me when he outlines the meaning of reading and unless you dive deeper into what he is saying and apply that to the books you read you wont be able to discover for yourself what he means. So, I've decided after reading the first couple of chapters to cover the books he discusses in this book as I go along this book to really understand what he is sayi...more

like · see review

Oct 11, 2012 Cheers1836 rated it 3 of 5 stars

A sufficient answer to the question "why read?" has elduded me for some time and, I suspect, will continue to do so.

Harold Bloom attempts to answer, ultimately conceding that reading "must be for and in [our] own interest." Reading is not a panacea; it will not usher us into peace, thus he admits his deep skepticism towards those who hold such a view. He treats reading primarily as a "solitary praxis rather than as an educational enterprise," and so his exhortation to us: I urge you to find wha...more

like · see review

Sep 09, 2012 Bruce rated it 4 of 5 stars

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I enjoyed it not as a didactic exposition of reading and its values, which it is not, but as an example of how works of literature might be read and what profit there is in reading good works of literature well. Having read a number of Bloom’s works and several reviews of this present book, I knew at the onset that its title may seem misleading. Yes, it is true that in his Prologue Bloom articulates five principles or suggestions or general observations about read...more

9 likes · like · see review

Apr 09, 2012 Laura rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: being-human, literary-theory, religious-studies

Another book from my Harold Bloom kick some years past, when I was in the grips of my ontological meltdown. Some of the many good bits:

“[Virginia Woolf]’s best advice is to remind us that ‘there is always a demon in us who whispers, ‘I hate, I love,’ and we cannot silence him.’ I cannot silence my demon, but in this book anyway I will listen to him only when he whispers, ‘I love,’ as I intend no polemics here, but only to teach reading.” (20)

“How to read the splendid Satan is the key to opening...more Another book from my Harold Bloom kick some years past, when I was in the grips of my ontological meltdown. Some of the many good bits:

“[Virginia Woolf]’s best advice is to remind us that ‘there is always a demon in us who whispers, ‘I hate, I love,’ and we cannot silence him.’ I cannot silence my demon, but in this book anyway I will listen to him only when he whispers, ‘I love,’ as I intend no polemics here, but only to teach reading.” (20)

“How to read the splendid Satan is the key to opening Paradise Lost, which to most current readers may seem like a vast work of science fiction performed in cosmic cinema. . . . Here is Satan at his most impressive. He wakes up, on a burning lake in Hell, to find himself surrounded by his stunned and traumatized followers. He, with them, has been defeated by Christ in the War in Heaven. Milton’s Christ, a kind of General Patton leading an angelic armored attack, has mounted the flaming Chariot of Paternal Deity, a cosmological version of the Israeli Merkabah tank, and with fire and fury has *118 thrown the rebel angels out into the Abyss. When the flaming fallen angels hit bottom, the impact burns Hell into the realm of what had been Chaos. The reader is conceived of her own sensations were she waking up with Satan and his catastrophic legions in so sublimely uncomfortable a condition! She will then better admire Satan’s authentic heroism, when he returns to consciousness and regards the blasted features of his lover Beelzebub (the Miltonic angels are androgynous, fallen and unfallen). (117)

on Crime and Punishment “We have no place to go but Raskolnikov’s consciousness, just as we have to journey with Macbeth into his heart of darkness. We might not murder old women or a fatherly monarch, but since in part we are Raskolnikov and Macbeth, perhaps in certain circumstances we might. Like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky makes us complicit in his hero-villain’s murders. Macbeth and Crime and Punishment both are authentically frightening tragedies that do not purge us of pity, let alone of fear. Reversing Aristotle’s socio-medical idea of catharsis, in which tragedy frees us of emotions not conductive to the public good, both Shakespeare and Dostoevsky have darker designs upon us.” (168)

on Hedda Gabler. “For the Aesthetes, life and literature alike were affairs of perception, sensation, and consciousness. All of these have turned venomous in Hedda Gabler, whose hysterical temperament prophecies the exacerbated sensibilities of women and men alike throughout the post-Ibsenite drama of the twentieth century.” (200)

And perhaps the best bit:

“Yet Hamlet is a nihilist poet in a double sense: subject and stance. In a play that talks about plays, in language that discourses upon itself, Hamlet believes in nothing, including language and the self. Christian critics ought to be uneasier with Hamlet than generally they are; Hamlet is still ahead of much of his audience in post-Christianity.” (214)

He ends with words I found some recognition, if not comfort, in:

“Normative tradition --- Judiac, Christian, Islamic, secular – will tell you, as Tarphon does, that Yahweh’s work is not to be abandoned, even though you cannot complete it. Shakespeare, who is the secular scripture, tells you to bear yourself like the Time, which means that a Time comes when you desist from the work. At sixty-nine, I do not know whether Tarphon or Shakespeare is right. And yet, though the moral decision cannot be made merely by reading well, the question of how to read and why are more than ever essential to help us decide whose work to perform.” (282-83)

Good book. I should read it again.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 10, 2011 Trevor rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: literature, reference

This is a remarkably conservative introduction to how to read and why. His selection of texts is also quite conservative and illustrative of his ideological positioning. What is most interesting is that he spends so much time criticising the very idea of reading from within an ideological position that he appears completely blind to the fact of his own ideology or even that it is an ideology. This ideology is most clearly illuminated at the end of the book when he discusses why it is good to rea...more

9 likes · like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 Ronald Wise rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Bloom's objectives in this book are grand, while a more appropriate title may have been What to Read and Why. With sections on the short story, poetry, drama, classical novels, and the modern novel, he identifies whom he considers the best contributors and their best work(s), with evolutionary speculation on how the earlier influenced the latter, plus some theoretical thoughts on the interplay between the development of Western civilization and its literature.

His use of a precise and efficient v...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 11, 2012 Kat rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I don't think Harold Bloom can so much as take a shit without referencing the act to Shakespeare in some way, shape or form.

I understand now that he is a Shakespeare scholar, but prior to picking up this book, I had no idea. I knew him to be a literary critic and scholar and therefore assumed he would be treating the topic of reading and literature to an academic analysis. Really, the book should be titled "How to Read Everything as an Offshoot of Shakespeare." On the general topic of reading he...more I don't think Harold Bloom can so much as take a shit without referencing the act to Shakespeare in some way, shape or form.

I understand now that he is a Shakespeare scholar, but prior to picking up this book, I had no idea. I knew him to be a literary critic and scholar and therefore assumed he would be treating the topic of reading and literature to an academic analysis. Really, the book should be titled "How to Read Everything as an Offshoot of Shakespeare." On the general topic of reading he has relatively little to say. The book opens with a short essay on the experience of reading, why one should read, etc. Nice, well-written if exceedingly contained within his position as traditionally educated within Western culture. The great bulk of the book however is a series of essays on various works. Within each, usually, is a sentence or two drawing the individual piece back to his overarching theme - Why read? - but more so he elaborates on why he believes each piece to be vital to Western literature (perfectly acceptable), to be engaging and beautiful (again, expected) and intrinsically related to Shakespeare at its very core (wait, what?). He writes in a kind of code, drawing parallels between characters in the individual works to Shakespearean characters. Rather than elaborating on characteristics of the work and how those specifically enhance one's love of reading or one's ability to read, he has created a Shakespearean shorthand that the reader must decipher before s/he can glean anything beyond the superficial.

A great deal is assumed of the reader. This isn't for the layman who has never studied literature but has read a lot (unless it's a lot of classics). Do not pick this up for a bit of light reading. It can be rewarding, I believe, but is not easily accessible.

I found his section on poetry particularly enjoyable. I do not think I would have continued reading the book if I had not met with that writing at the time that I did. On plays, he shortchanges us. Three are selected as compared to dozens of short stories, poems and novels. What's worse, he expends all his energies on analyzing Hamlet and leaves a few paltry pages for Hedda Gabler and The Importance of Being Earnest. (Even worse, his commentary on Hamlet is immediately unreadable unless you are prepared, as he is, to liken Shakespeare and Hamlet to God, all-knowing and wise. (And no, that is not hyperbole on my part.))

If I had known what I was getting into, I would not have picked up this book. Not because the writing is bad or I am offended by his opinions. On the contrary, I agree with some of his reading and appreciate his assumption of a female reader. (I would not shun a book simply because I do not agree with some of the opinions, anyway.) But I am no Shakespearean scholar. I enjoy Shakespeare greatly, but I do not expect him to inform every aspect of my reading life, and the theme grew tedious rather than enlightening.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2013 Stephen King rated it 4 of 5 stars

An interesting book that opens my eyes to what I have not read - most of the 'masters.' This book tells one how to read (I'm still working on understanding that other than read all the 'greats' and read them often) and why (not to best your buddy or foe, but for your own self). And I like that.

This book just might make me read all those books I never had to in school - I was always just one step past having the 'dull' and 'boring' English Lit.

1 like · like · see review

Oct 27, 2011 Roberta rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2008

Harold Bloom è un critico di chiara fama (il suo ambito è, come si nota scorrendo l'indice di questo saggio, la letteratura statunitense). Il presupposto da cui parte è semplice: la lettura serve a noi stessi. E' un piacere solitario, e un modo di migliorarci. Bloom ammette che nessuno dovrebbe dirci che cosa dobbiamo leggere, ma disobbedisce per primo a questa indicazione. Scegli alcuni scrittori di racconti, poeti, scrittori teatrali e romanzieri e ne illustra delle opere, cercando di spiegarc...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 23, 2011 Blayze Hembree rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: essays

Harold Bloom, arguably our greatest literary critic since Lionel Trilling, published his How to Read and Why in 2000, just two years after The Western Canon. Some might find monotony in Bloom because his writing often seems to repeat itself, and it is true that there are many overlaps. In this book, we become reacquainted with his reading of the works of of Shakespeare, Cervantes, Jane Austen, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Marcel Proust, and Jorges Luis Borges. In fact it exalts as his past out...more Harold Bloom, arguably our greatest literary critic since Lionel Trilling, published his How to Read and Why in 2000, just two years after The Western Canon. Some might find monotony in Bloom because his writing often seems to repeat itself, and it is true that there are many overlaps. In this book, we become reacquainted with his reading of the works of of Shakespeare, Cervantes, Jane Austen, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Marcel Proust, and Jorges Luis Borges. In fact it exalts as his past output did: praising each writer, especially Shakespeare, for his or her originality. Here, however, he departs from The Western Canon among others by considering a vast range of important works from multiple genres. While The Western Canon relied on Shakespeare and Whitman primarily to explain the richness of the English and American traditions - and thus to conclude by rendering them influential for the likes of Beckett and Neruda - How to Read and Why has no such center (however divided it might be). Here Bloom departs from the aforementioned by considering a vast range of important works in multiple genres.

The first section addresses the short story genre; and Bloom briefly touches on a myriad of clever narratives from such writers as Anton Chekhov, Ernest Hemingway, Flannery O'Connor, and Vladimir Nabokov. His insights for the short story are not as compelling as they are for the play, poem, or novel, but since Bloom has no end to his library, his project takes on ambitious scope. In the poem section, he focuses on ballads, and especially from the Romantics. Yet, this should not startle his regular readership, because Bloom is primarily a Romantic critic (and at heart). For the novels, he analyzes, among others, Dickens's Great Expectations instead of Bleak House and Austen's Emma instead of Persuasion, because the latter novels - his personal favorites - were the topics of The Western Canon.

I hesitate to say that this is not Bloom at his finest. However, of course, any writing of Bloom's is a worthy read for any aesthete or wisdom-lover. Besides his Shakespearean moments, he is most masterful when introducing us to Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain; he states, "Mann has unfortunately been somewhat eclipsed during the last third of this century, being anything but a novelist of the counterculture. The Magic Mountain cannot be read sandwhiched in between On The Road and some chunk of cyberpunk. It represents the high culture that is now in some jeopardy, since the book demands considerable education and reflection" (187). This is surely how Bloom reads: with "considerable education and reflection." And yet he knows the pressures of society, even though he's hibernating away in some Yale ivory tower right about now (oh, wouldn't we all). To say all that, it's worth mentioning that the book's faults are in its looseness, its imbalance. His Hamlet section greatly surpasses any other, not only in page length but also in analytic inquiry and even gusto. Faulkner's works are freshest on my mind, and I must say that his reading of As I Lay Dying is rather cheap and even wrong at times (reasons of which I won't get into now). But Hamlet, despite being taken up in almost every other Bloomian endeavor, including a book of its own, is clever, intuitive, and quite original. Everywhere in the middle, Bloom presents a fragmentary notion of his read, which is somewhat pleasant but hardly satisfactory.

Readers of Bloom may remember that his analyzes are full of long, arduous quotations, which are followed by very concise or condensed insights. Perhaps, instead of being impatient at such ellipses, we should find comfort in knowing that one of the greatest readers of this age has provided his highlighted and dog-eared passages; it's almost as if - wanting to know more about great literature - we meander into the halls of Yale's humanity building in search of Bloom to explain to us why we should read, and when we sit down in his office, he inclines us to the primary sources, reading them aloud, as if merely to reverberate their profound meanings. This alone is Bloom's necessity as a critic, that is if he has one. Bloom often asks: Why read? And at one point, he answers with something like: so you can know. And this is true, to a certain extent. We need to know about humanity, and most of all about ourselves. His ubiquitous question, stolen from Job, "Where is wisdom to be found?" is rather alarming. Wisdom surely can be found in Shakespeare, Faulkner, the writer of Job himself, and even in Bloom - our last grasp at high art, in my mind. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Mar 22, 2013 Don Weidinger rated it 4 of 5 stars

Yale, the reader became the book, healing, to weigh and consider, perhaps reconsider opinions as a reader’s perception varies, comments on Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Toni Morrison, Jane Austen, Henry James, Robert Browning, Stendhal, Faulkner, Philip Roth, Bethan Stevens, Walt Whitman, Anton Chekhov, Thomas Mann, Brimley Johnson, Dante Alighieri, Steven Connor, Robert Miller, Hemingway, Donald Thomas, F Scott Fitzgerald, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Cormac McCarthy, Mi...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2012 Booksy rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-2012

As a person of a non-English speaking background, I was mostly exposed to Russian literature up until I moved to new Zealand and then to Australia, so I had a lot of “catching up” to do in regards to the English, American, Australian and other English speaking countries’ literary heritage as well as contemporary writing. It has been an amazing journey from the start and I am enjoying every minute of my experience of embracing English language literature.

This book caught my attention: this disti...more
As a person of a non-English speaking background, I was mostly exposed to Russian literature up until I moved to new Zealand and then to Australia, so I had a lot of “catching up” to do in regards to the English, American, Australian and other English speaking countries’ literary heritage as well as contemporary writing. It has been an amazing journey from the start and I am enjoying every minute of my experience of embracing English language literature.

This book caught my attention: this distinguished professor of humanities at Yale university selected a number of literary works to comment on (those included pieces from Russian literature – Chekhov, Turgenev, Dostoyevsky, Nabokov), English (Shakespeare, Austin, Wilde, Dickens, James), French (Proust, Maupassant), American (Faulkner, Pynchon, Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison) and others. It was a collection of observations on merits of the selected work and some comparison between these. I was somewhat surprised that Bloom selected Marcel Proust and yet omitted even the name of James Joyce. However, it was HIS choice and HIS preferences on what constitute the superior literary works, not mine.
It was amazing to read Bloom’s comments on Russian classical works (happened to be my favourite ones too), his deep understanding of the Russian literary tradition and the relations between social and historical scene and the depiction of so-called “Russian soul” in those works.

As for the American novels Bloom selected to comment on, I have to admit, the commentary went above my head and the main reason could be that I hadn’t read these novels yet. I wanted to read ABOUT these (appeared to be very challenging novels that can be understood from re-reading and further re-reading only) novels first before I attempted reading them. The section dedicated to these novels, although quite difficult for an average reader to grasp, definitely inspires to read these outstanding literary pieces.

And the last comment on the Poetry section. This was the other reason I wanted to read Bloom’s book. I have to say that although the English language prose is something that I mastered my understanding and appreciation for from extensive reading (I read and enjoy both classical and contemporary literature), English poetry is something I still can’t grasp (be in the classical type or the modern). Sometimes, I feel like I am having a glimpse of understanding, a spark in the darkness, and then the darkness envelops me again. This irritates me and I am determined to some day get closer to appreciating English poetry. Alas, this book did not bring me closer to this desired state. I guess I will just have to persevere on my own.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: How to Read and Why
avg rating	preview: How to Read and Why Goodreads rating: 3.59 (1175 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20943.How_to_Read_and_Why?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348965737l/20943.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20943.How_to_Read_and_Why?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]How to Read and Why by Harold Bloom[/url]

How to Read and Why

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (18)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Harold Bloom

Books by Harold Bloom

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About How to Read and Why

Quotes from How to Read and Why