[ 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: 756 KB, 1919x2560, bloom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19155072 No.19155072 [Reply] [Original]

Essential Jewcore?

>> No.19155084

Saul Bellow
Salinger

Maybe Roth

>> No.19155142

Kafka, Roth, Heller, Bellow, Rand, Bergson, Canetti, Pasternak.

>> No.19155153

Proust

>> No.19155167

Ginsberg

>> No.19155168

>>19155072
God, i miss this king like you wouldn't believe

>> No.19155171

>>19155072
The Bible

>> No.19155188

>>19155168
His taste was rather shit, though. Sometimes it was good, but often it was over-romantic. The guy literally called Anne Carson a genius while disliking Pound and Eliot.

>> No.19155190

>>19155072
Don't forget white people wrote Jewcore as well:
Samson Agonistes by Milton
Prophetic Works of William Blake
Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare

>> No.19155204

Kafka, Wittgenstein, Salinger, Proust, Schulz, Spinoza

>> No.19155210

>>19155188
>His taste was rather shit, though
>The guy literally called Anne Carson a genius while disliking Pound and Eliot
doesn't compute

>> No.19155240

>>19155188
Don't you think that was a career move on his part though? Don't you have to say kind things about women in order to survive in academia?
Also, T.S. Eliot and Pound are known anti-semites. Harold Bloom praised Eliot but always followed it up with, "But fuck him for hating Jews." As far as his opinion on Pound, I don't think he could admit to liking him without severe backlash from other Jews.

>> No.19155251

>>19155240
>Don't you think that was a career move on his part though

I can't take seriously someone who would lie about that.
Steiner praised Pound, Celine, Rabatet, even (to some extent) Albert Speer.
I really think Bloom had bad taste. He really loved middlebrow authors like Saramago and Garcia Marquez, and often quoted very mediocre poems as if they were masterpieces. He read literature looking for 'wisdom' or some such idiocy, not for good writing.

>> No.19155258

>>19155240
no, he admitted later in his career that he couldn't escape Eliot and that he accepted that he was great.
I cannot ever recall Bloom ever saying anythign bad about Pound, though.

>> No.19155268

>>19155251
i love how i didn't even need to read this post to know what kind of fucking idiot retard you were

>> No.19155276

>>19155251
>wisdom' or some such idiocy, not for good writing.
He couldn't find wisdom if it bit him in the ass. He was a petty hedonist who wanted books that were acceptable within his worldview.
Look who he claimed as the four most important living writers: Pynchon, Cormac, Roth, and Delilo. IDK how anyone could find a shred of insight in any of those fours books, but could very easily see how a coward could feel reassured after reading those. He had mediocre taste, and was useful as some steel bulwark of academia.
Watch the interview where he seethed about Trump towards the end of his life, and talks about how a life-time of reading will make everyone smart, or something in that manner. Such basic world-wisdom completely amiss, the flabby types in classrooms who read books for people afraid of life sicken me; what could this man get out of a Melville or Conrad book? Imagine him reading Celine's pamphlets, a comfortable man like that has no sense of suffering or isolation, and thus his taste reflects that.

Read Richard Francis Burton not Bloom. Any critic is full of shit anyway.

>> No.19155297

>>19155268
Why? Because I reject Saramago and Marquez? They're middlebrow writers, their prose style is filled with clichés and they look for cheap effects. They write for the masses, to make money. They do have good books, but, as I said, it's middlebrow. And yes, I do read them in the original.
Read writers like Lobo Antunes, Fernando Pessoa, Vicente Aleixandre or César Vallejo, among many others, if you want the real stuff in those languages. Even Rulfo is much better than Marquez (Marquez himself would probably admit this). OK? Bloomian imbecile.

>> No.19155305

>>19155276
>Richard Francis Burton

His translation of Camões is shit.

>> No.19155311

>>19155297
>Fernando Pessoa,
His poetry is quite bad desu, at least the English ones published in his life-time. Have yet to read Message, and do like the Book of Disquiet a bit, but it's the same thing about him being sad endlessly. IDK if I'd say he's great literature, although there's parts of it that are touching. IDK if he was pathetic or liberated, however. His life seemed miserable.

>> No.19155315

>>19155297
No, because you went straight for Albert Speer after shitting on the jew.
You should work on that, or leave.

>> No.19155318

>>19155305
>His translation of Camões is shit.
why? are you Portugese?

>> No.19155380

>>19155311
>at least the English ones published in his life-time

The English stuff is horrible. His vocabulary was not adapted to the English language.
His best poems are those written by Álvaro de Campos, Pessoa-himself (including Mensagem, but that is untranslatable really) and Ricardo Reis (also untranslatable).
The Book of Disquiet can be very good sometimes, but not always. It's written by Bernardo Soares.
The best 'translatable' stuff is Álvaro de Campos, specially the odes. Harold Bloom was a great admirer of the odes, actually.

>>19155315
Are you suggesting I am a Nazi? I have Jewish heritage myself on my mother's side. I am citing Steiner as an example of an academic who was successful without being a coward. If you can't understand that you are such an idiot that it's worthless talking to you.

>>19155318
Camões verse flows better than Shakespeare's, but Burton's translation doesn't.

>> No.19155388

>>19155380
>Camões verse flows better than Shakespeare's, but Burton's translation doesn't.
Same with any Dante, Homer, Tasso, Ludovico translation. None are good.

>> No.19155416

>>19155380
>Are you suggesting I am a Nazi? I have Jewish heritage myself on my mother's side. I am citing Steiner as an example of an academic who was successful without being a coward. If you can't understand that you are such an idiot that it's worthless talking to you
i don't care.

>> No.19155423

>>19155416
Shut up Goyim.

>> No.19155446

>>19155416
And yet you cared enough to notice the fact I had cited Speer and then comment on it, and explain your comment, but now that your hypothesis about me has been refuted you suddenly do not care any longer.
Go be an idiot somewhere else.

>> No.19155513

>>19155446
what an embarrassing post.

>> No.19155518

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/nov/03/classics.highereducation

1/2

>In view of what follows, I ought perhaps to say that, in theory at least, I am sympathetic to Harold Bloom's solitary folly. He is fighting the good fight for literature, which has been reduced in universities to a snarled aggregate of political and sexual gripes and grudges, inviting a punitive deconstruction. It is a shame that he debases the cause by the self-indulgent obscurantism of his method, and warps what ought to be praise for the creativity of others into a ranting, babbling song of himself.

>Genius, inflated to 800 pages by self-puffery and repetition, is a monumentally silly production. The idea is simple, even sophomoric. Like those educational planners who based the American college curriculum on a selection of Great Books - back in the days before those books were dismissed for not being written by living Latino lesbians - Bloom has made a list of his 100 favourite writers and given it institutional force by calling it 'the Western canon'.

>Few would quarrel with his choices, and you might even allow him his soft spot for Swinburne; the trouble is that he has arranged the writers into a jerry-built cosmology, so that critical exposition soon gives way to preachy fulmination. Bloom is conducting a church service, not a seminar: 'I chant a lyric by WB Yeats or a meditation by Wallace Stevens, and find I have to confront my own mortality.' The church, you will notice, has a congregation of one. Priests or rabbis are not usually so solipsistically preoccupied with themselves. But Bloom reminds us on every second or third page that he is now 72 years old, and warns that we may soon lose him. Well, I will try to be brave, and shall do my best to cope when he plods off to confront what he calls, in portentous capitals, 'my own OBLIVION'.

>Meanwhile, back to his preposterous book, which imagines itself to be a sacred text. Bloom is a Gnostic (and so, in his addled opinion, are all the writers he includes, since genius is the demon that drives them - despite their fallen, fractured nature - to seek visionary transcendence). I find the creed baffling: gnosis, it seems, is the higher ignorance which licenses Bloom to bamboozle us by saying, for instance, that Kafka 'taught that we have nothing in common with ourselves, let alone with one another'.

>> No.19155524

>>19155518
2/2

>Even worse, the organisation of the book which might more easily have been chronological or alphabetical, mimics the Kabbalah. Bloom groups his genii in angelic huddles, named after cabbalistic attributes 'at once of God and of the Adam Kadmon or Divine Man, God's Image'. Call me profane, but he makes the Kabbalah sound like a load of cobblers. As he relapses into Yiddish, which was his first language, the book turns inadvertently comic. Thus Iris Murdoch is consigned to Lustre 16 of Hod, the site of 'moral majesty'. I could not help imagining Iris shouldering a builder's hod of bricks, which is not at all majestic. Shelley and Wordsworth belong in Lustre 10 of Din, supposedly 'the edge or horizon that marks the limit of Hesed's covenant love'. But the din that fills my head is the blather made by Bloom. And from din it's a short distance to 'my garbage bin', the abyss in which he junks Céline, Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound and JK Rowling. I found myself, as I toiled on, grievously tempted to bin Bloom.

>Close verbal analysis can hardly be expected of him: this is a man who once claimed to read 1,000 pages an hour. For the most part, he is content to quote his genii, usually for pages on end, or to rely on a sorority of research assistants whose names - Tara Mohr, Kate Cambor, Yoojin Grace Kim, Aislinn Goodman and Mei Chin - suggest that they too belong in his pantheon.

>He might have set this multicultural task force to compile an index, but it seems that re-reading is a task shirked by Bloom's editors and helpers. On page 520 he snuggles up to Joyce's Leopold Bloom by calling him 'my amiable namesake'. On page 521 he remarks that 'I bear the name of Joyce's Poldy'. On page 520 he describes Bloom, meaninglessly, as 'the most Shakespearean character in twentieth-century Western literature'. By page 522 he is ready to say so again: 'of all characters in twentieth-century literature, Leopold Bloom is the most Shakespearean'.

>Among so much maudlin self-pity and flatulent self-dramatisation, the most personally revealing detail about Bloom comes in tiny print on the back of the title page: '©Harold Bloom Limited Liability Company 2002'. The man, as well as being famously obese and ridiculously megalomaniac, has incorporated himself. Already more apocalyptic twaddle is moving down the conveyor belt: in a forthcoming book on immortality, he plans to juxtapose Blake with Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church. It's enough to make me long for my own modestly lower-case oblivion.

>> No.19155533

>>19155513
You are incapable of nuance.

>> No.19155542

>>19155533
you are incorrect.

>> No.19155965

>>19155276
>IDK how anyone could find a shred of insight in any of those fours books
You might be simply stupid then. You diss Bloom while engaging in similar teen tier polemics. You have very little self awareness.
>but could very easily see how a coward could feel reassured after reading those.
Already dishing the quips out of insecurity, eh?
I don't like Bloom, but you are trying to act like you are hotshit with tastes even more mediocre than him (fucking Antunes and vallejo? Seriously). He like everybody else has attributes that are worth praising regardless of your overall opinion of him. He did not hate Eliot and he praised Pound where he thought he could. You should atleast read one of his books instead of parroting shit you heard around these ramparts.
Besides, Bloom's writings on Moby dick are unanimously good and he sure as hell has a better grasp of the book than most other academics, and infinitely more than you but that doesn't need saying.

>> No.19155974
File: 62 KB, 976x850, 1627836533424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19155974

>>19155072
Jews don't exist.

>> No.19155975

>>19155380
Steiner wasn't a coward in your eyes because he was a nobody. If he was tenth as famous as Bloom, he would be ripe to be called a pussy.

>> No.19155979

>>19155072
Cohen, Saul Bernard

>> No.19155984
File: 43 KB, 349x466, 95CE908D-E0B4-4420-988C-65A35AE2C311.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19155984

>>19155072
curb your enthusiasm season 3 is tragicomic jewish /lit/ at its absolute finest

>> No.19156007

>>19155965
That was my first post

It’s 4chan nobody listens to me nor should they. He has a following

Idk who Antunes or Vallejo are
Idc I’ve he likes those two
You understand a book intuitively not by remanifesting the language. He didn’t understand the rest of Melville, I have trouble with favoring books and not the ouvere in general. It’s lazy and shallow and something Melville even goes against in Pierre. There are a pantheon of great books not singular pillars of literature. Discussing moby dick but no other Melville clearly shows he’s not to be taken seriously.

>> No.19156037

>>19156007
>Discussing moby dick but no other Melville clearly shows he’s not to be taken seriously.
He said he didn't like Melville's other works, and i am not bothered by it. This place repeatedly fails to realize that the Melville cult here is bigger than Bloom's; he is the safest writer here to praise or say anything good about (multiple 1sts in year end lists might have conditioned people that way; not like it is without justification, i admit). But don't then talk of cowards and cowardice.

You can analyze Melville's Moby dick without analysing the textual relationship with his other books. You are bothered because he did not praise his other books like you wanted him to. That's a juvenile response to a critical work.

>> No.19156061

>>19156037
Lol those books aren’t candy you simply reduce to like and dislike.
Liking moby dick but not other Melville is the safest opinion imaginable, so idk what you’re getting at. Nor does he say why he dislikes them nor why that is sufficient reasoning.

It’s not, modern criticism is a joke, every writer writes one book in many forms, the basis of great literature isn’t whether Bloom liked or disliked something, that is the juvenile response. There’s nothing to be gained from Bloom and thankfully this woke shit will yield some good by removing worthless critics from existence and people will learn to think instead of reading ‘the canon.’

>> No.19156103

>>19156061
Why does he have to justify for disliking something? I don't recall Bloom writing about books that he disliked. Some brief comments at most. Bloom's critical nemesis, Gass, also admitted to writing only about books and writers that he liked. Bloom's opinion is of course subjective, as is yours, but you are asking him to write about books he disliked because you can't accept the fact that he loved Moby dick and nothing else from Melville. And no, you like and dislike books. How is that arguable? Did you not dismiss a few well regarded writers out of that a couple posts above?
>the basis of great literature isn’t whether Bloom liked or disliked something, that is the juvenile response
Exactly. I don't understand why you feel so strongly then.

>> No.19156169

>>19156103
>And no, you like and dislike books
I very rarely outright dislike a book from an author I think wrote a masterpiece, at worst I’d say it was good but not as good. That thinking does not make sense to me. I honestly can’t think of a single author, maybe when I read every HG Wells book since he wrote a lot, but I can’t imagine outright disliking any where his vision is not compromised. I even liked the two Stoker books he wrote with brain damage from the stroke, and the early Lovecraft stories that are kind of shit. Someone like Kerouac ranges from shit to good, but never great much less a masterpiece. Updike and Bellow are also possible candidates, maybe Nabokov. The problem with Melville is there’s so much wisdom and such a unique aesthetic that I think the experience is so valuable and taking into consideration he wrote moby dick and is aesthetically clearly the same writer idk how you could say your experience was sour.

>dismiss great authors
I mean plenty, but I don’t think they wrote a masterpiece then shit. I think they’re at best good then shit, I also fall in love with writers and love everything they ever wrote desu.

>feel so strongly
I’m against what bloom represents and I hate his ‘canon’ since I usually spend months reading an authors complete works before moving on and think these lists promote laziness and a judgmental approach that people are reading the wrong books because academia disapproves

>> No.19156225

>>19156169
If you are seeding books into "masterpiece", "good" and "shit", then it is simply a different way of saying "like" and "dislike". How does this escape you?
So if a writer wrote a "masterpiece", he couldn't then write "shit"? He can only write "shit" if he never wrote a "masterpiece"? Notwithstanding that the "shits" and "masterpieces" are completely subjective in themselves, this criteria is even more arbitrary than Bloom's. You admit to dismissing plenty great writers, writers many people would agree have more than one masterpieces; not according to you though. So what to believe? You dismiss the "canon" (which Bloom has repeatedly dismissed as his personal taste) yet you engage in making something similar for yourself.
Your argument seems to me highly confused.

>> No.19156241

>>19156225
Just call it a day bud, I was clear enough. The rest should be obvious, or humoring enough for you to refrain.

>> No.19156246

>>19155188
>Pound and Eliot
Both were aware of how brutally evil Jews are

>> No.19156247

I like Bloom

>> No.19156270

>>19155251
Only women like good writing, men read to get knowledge and power. Call me edgy but thats the true.

>> No.19156294

>>19156241
You were clear that you are confused as to what you are even trying to critique. You are disparaging Bloom yet you come across as a much less smarter version of him.

>> No.19156304

>>19155258
>Pound’s major poetic work is The Cantos, which seem to me to anthologize badly, nor do I have much esteem for them, or for Pound, whether as a person or poet.
I recall he also said somewhere that his work was tainted by fascism.
Bloom is a decent critic but he was a Jew first.

>> No.19156305

>>19156169
Content aside, this is one of the most horribly written posts I have read on this board. Really unpleasant to read.

>> No.19156319

>>19156304
>but he was a Jew first
All Jews are. It their psychotic ethnonarcissism that makes them such liars and debasers and degenerates and successful as well as such evil monsters

>> No.19156330

>>19156305
Delusional

>>19156294
You keep going as if I give a shit, I’m reading and posting; I could care less if some 4chan anon can pedantically pick apart my logic.
I’m also not a critic And you’re creating problems to justify liking him. Yes a Yale critic with a significant amount of years on me is a better sophist. In terms of pure intellect I’m probably higher though.

>> No.19156334

>>19156330
>In terms of pure intellect I’m probably higher though.
If your logic can be picked, rather easily I might say, then 'tis nothing but more delusion.

>> No.19156349

>>19156334
No because you understood my point and you’re one of those people who has a fetish from arguing on the internet. You only care about being correct and having me know that, however you don’t even have an opinion (other than bloom is a better critic than me which is frankly obvious) and tediously arguing everything I say when my general criticism was I don’t find critics who speak on single books and not an authors ouvere and recurring ideas in them to be valuable, like he did by praising moby dick and shunning the rest; in addition how Bloom is the face of literary canon and I dislike the type of person he resembles. Long week, meeting people early, and am off to bed. Goodnight.

>> No.19156369

>>19156349
>I don’t find critics who speak on single books and not an authors ouvere and recurring ideas in them to be valuable, like he did by praising moby dick and shunning the rest
And all I have been trying to tell you is that it is what you think how it should be. You are engaging in the same kind of polemics like Bloom did when praising books and sometimes dismissing writers. It is the same type of self-centricity. Bloom did read Melville's rest but did not like it, you are acting as if that is some objective measure to dismiss him despite his essays on Moby Dick being quite good and informative. I am just pointing the obvious to you.

>> No.19156437

>>19156304
>>19155188
He thought Eliot was a great poet. He just disliked his criticism and its influence, as well as his antisemitism.

>> No.19156530

>>19156246
This isn't /pol/ your lecherous wretch.

>> No.19156584

>>19155072
Pessimistic neurotic Jews are my faggots

Kafka
Roland Topor
Georg Trakl
Bruno Schulz
Carlo Michelstaedter
Paul Celan

>> No.19156735

>>19156530
found the homo jew. go and sit insiide an oven, jewboy.