Terminalcoffee discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives
>
Is Harold Bloom as pompous as I think he is?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't know him personally, but he reminds me of a lot of academics:)
I think that's not the real Harold Bloom.
For one thing, they would snag him as a Goodreads Author.
That's what I was thinking. However, I'm pretty sure I've read this review somewhere else, and it's most likely legit, even if it has been added to GR under false pretenses.Correction: it IS legit, it was published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) in 2000. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rebeccal/c...
Ha! He reminds me of a few profs I've had. I find the type to be very effective in the gilded cage of acedemia, but in real life, such arrogance, pompousness and smugness can be hard to take.In short, yes, I think he's that smug, but such arrogance makes me laugh. And, not in a friendly way. Bad Sue...
It's not just the Harry Potter thing, since he does make salient points, it's just his general attitude towards reading that is done strictly for pleasure. Granted, I'm basing my opinion not only on this review, but books like The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages and How to Read and Why.
If reading isn't fun, why would we do it? What I think many academics miss is that they read books to acquire knowledge because they enjoy acquiring knowledge. In other words: learning is fun for them.
I would consider learning a value added feature of reading. If I learn something while reading great, if not that's ok too.
Well, I'm part nerd so I enjoy a good head rush from knowledge every once in awhile (and yes, I have also taught college). But I also love Harry Potter. Reading has different value for different people. It really is all good :)
I love to read for knowledge as well as enjoyment, and I think that people who read strictly for escapism miss out on just as much as those that read solely for intellectual reasons. I think my major concern with Bloom is that he is elitist; he looks down on anyone who may believe that life is not solely the pursuit of knowledge, but there are just as many people on the other side that look down on intellectuals as dull and, well, elitist. The biggest argument I have against him is his tendency to argue against diversity in the "canon" of great works. He often deprecates female writers and writers of color as people who are just trying to use their "fringe" element and the tide of political correctness to receive undeserved attention, when they are actually just trying to have their voices heard and considered with the same effort and sincerity people like him devote so assiduously to the DWM club.
I like reading Bloom because his interpretations a always interesting and usually pretty sophisticated. I don't think there is anyone who reads often that doesn't enjoy it, for whatever reason. I don't think Bloom, despite the pomposity of his prose, is necessarily "seeking knowledge", he simply is obsessed with literature and has immersed himself in some of the best writing ever written. Speaking for myself, I love Harry Potter and I love Proust for different reasons but with more or less the same sort of enthusiasm. However, I don't think anyone who's read either would argue seriously that as a serious work of art Proust's prose and overall artistic merit isn't relatively more deep, profound, relevant, and worthwhile in it's ability to enrich human life.
Kajah wrote: "I like reading Bloom because his interpretations a always interesting and usually pretty sophisticated. I don't think there is anyone who reads often that doesn't enjoy it, for whatever reason. I ..."Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the guy and I appreciate anyone's efforts to highlight the importance of literature, and he does that if nothing else. And since he has devoted so much of his life to the works that he loves, you are almost guaranteed a very good analysis and a great deal of passion. I stand by my assertion, however, that he is blind to the merits of people that he assumes are just recognized because it is politically correct to do so, when they are just as deserving as anyone else. Plus, he is prejudiced against reading "new" writers, and insists on harping on how great literature is dying. How would he know if he doesn't read anything new?
Amber wrote: ...that he is blind to the merits of people that he assumes are just recognized because it is politically correct to do so, when they are just as deserving as anyone else. Plus, he is prejudiced against reading "new" writers, and insists on harping on how great literature is dying. How would he know if he doesn't read anything new? Yeah, in many ways I think he can be unfair to people who aren't writing to add to the body of "timeless literature". He is prejudiced toward new writers, but I think this is because he only interested in works that are so original that they can't help but be considered "timeless", which no one can really know until a significant amount of time has passed. I will say that I can't imagine a discussion with him -especially about books- being a particularly pleasant experience, but it would certainly be a interesting conversation.
Mod
"...we have four living writers in America who have, in one way or another, touched what I would call the sublime. They are McCarthy, of course, with Blood Meridian; Philip Roth, particularly with two extraordinary novels, the very savage Sabbath’s Theater and American Pastoral, which I mentioned before; Don DeLillo’s Underworld, which is a little long for what it does but nevertheless is the culmination of what Don can do; and, of course, the mysterious figure of Mr. Pynchon."
Lobstergirl wrote: "How are you defining "new?" Bloom:"...we have four living writers in America who have, in one way or another, touched what I would call the sublime. They are McCarthy, of course, with Blood Meri..."
I think his statements sometimes contradict his actions, because I would call these writers "new," relatively speaking, but I was riffing on a statement that he made about not reading contemporary fiction. I think it was something he said in The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, but I don't remember precisely what he said, so I could have misinterpreted it (it's been well over a year since I read it).
He thinks that the particular forms of literature that speak to him and to his own experience, that reflect back his beliefs and expectations about how the world works are superior to other forms. He believes that literature that reflects and makes art from the experiences of people of other cultures, genders, skin tones than his own is only getting praised because of guilt and patronage, that it isn't genuinely good, its just fashionably pc. SKRREEEEEEECHHHH! Let me off this damn train!!!Exactly.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Terminalcoffee
Books mentioned in this topic
The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (other topics)The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (other topics)
How to Read and Why (other topics)
I've read a couple of his books, and generally liked them, if only because I like to fight with him in my head.