harold bloom says the academy is full of shit, more on this story as it develops

[Anonymous No.2408446]

>read harold bloom's "how to read and why"
>he says reading is all about your own enrichment and is skeptical of anybody who claims a knowledge of literature can be used for practical use
>he says while it is proven that the western canon is more likely to steer you toward being a better person, that's not always the case and in fact it's the people who reject the establishment that produce the greatest literature
>mfw harold bloom, the mac daddy of literary criticism and master-at-arms of literary theory says fuck it, literature is just opinions, although I think harry potter etc. is shit, that's your thing if you want to read it and I won't think any less of you because that's just, like, your opinion man

why should I feel guilty about reading speculative fiction again?

[Anonymous No.2408466]

>harold bloom, the mac daddy of literary criticism and master-at-arms of literary theory

Uh, no.

Harold Bloom hasn't even been a part of an English department for about 30 years. He rejects most criticism and theory that is still relevant to anything except him.

[Anonymous No.2408496]

>>2408466
because he is the sensei who has surpassed the school

seriously though, have bloom's words lost any truth since this book? I think not. of course "the elite" are bound to disown anybody who challenges their "authority", it's hilarious that in this day and age where the smartest men are said to be the ones who most overestimate their own ignorances, literature faggots are still implying "you either read this or you are a pleb-tier faggot, we are right, the end"

[Anonymous No.2408503]

>>2408496

>because he is the sensei who has surpassed the school

You really don't know what you're talking about. He didn't surpass anything. He decided to stand perfectly still.

[Anonymous No.2408504]

>>2408466
>harold bloom hasn't been part of an english department (aka the cancer) for 30 years
>implying this is a liability

[Anonymous No.2408510]

fuck harold bloom

[Anonymous No.2408512]

>>2408503
>you don't know what you're talking about

orly

you have ten seconds to prove I don't have a phd in comparative literature, mr. establishment

[Anonymous No.2408517]

>>2408504

Would you respect a neuroscientist who was still practicing phrenology?

[Anonymous No.2408533]

>>2408517
>harold bloom
>a neuroscientist who is still practicing phrenology

son, that tao lin is going to your brain

[Anonymous No.2408555]

But it IS just opinions and it always were opinions.

>but.. but... but some people know more than others!!!11!
Yeah, that's your opinion on who knows more too. You trust a friend with a similar taste, you trust a guy like Bloom because he has read a bunch of things more than you did, you trust an author you like, etc. But in the end, it's the experience that counts. If it doesn't do it for you... Then what? You have to like it? You're just not there yet? Maybe you'll get there, maybe you will never like it not in a million years.

Something is only GOOD when it poses to be good to the reader. And what makes it good to the reader? The previous knowledge, experiences, references, things you saw that connect in your brain while you read it.

[Anonymous No.2408559]

>>2408555 cont
Critics, experts, things like that are only said to be that because we trust their references, their knowledge, their sensibility. No book has a certificate of quality and no person who labels books good or bad has a certificate to do it either. It's our choice and our choice only to believe in this fantasy. It doesn't mean all books are equal, but that all books have potential to get a reaction from us, good or bad.

I trust Bloom, I like what he likes and thinks. I might not like them all, but that would be weird anyway.

His point on practical use is fucking correct, because to atribute a practical use for a book is to ignore that subjective quality of it. It's no longer a book or an artwork, it's a tool. Sure good books can be used as a practical tool, but that shouldn't be a priority when judging the artistic quality of it, not at all.

Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2408564]

Bloom will always be alright in my book because we both love Whitman.

[Anonymous No.2408574]

>>2408555
>>2408559

I still think the concept of a canon is valid, though, if only for practical reasons. There's no way anyone could read everything ever, so I think it's acceptable to have widely agreed upon "important books."

Ultimately, yes, taste is subjective, but this doesn't make the study and production of culture any less significant or profound for both the individual or the community.

[Anonymous No.2408601]

>>2408574
I completely agree with you. I think the key is just to understand the role of the canon as a consensual but not dogmatic list of great books. And as something that should account for the collective, a broader sense of quality should be used as opposed to a very personal one.

I don't think subjectivety clashes with any study on the history of the arts, on the contrary, I think it gives new strenght to it. When people are able to understand it as such, they are more likely to trust it. Otherwise, you'll see a lot of "casuals" thinking it's word of god and eventually finding "mistakes" that deny the canon as valid, when no such thing as a mistake exists in that form.

[Anonymous No.2408628]

>reading fiction

[Anonymous No.2408647]

Harold Bloom is almost always right.

Especially concerning the practical use of literature and theory/"school of resentment." Do we need a canon? Meh. Do we need to read canonical texts? Yes, if you want to read.

For Bloom, shitty books are a waste of time and I'd agree. I'd much rather watch shitty tv and films if I want simple entertainment. Harold Bloom does the same. He watches MTV.

[Harold Bloom No.2408657]

My favorite viewing, and this is the first time I have ever admitted it to anyone, but what I love to do, when I don’t watch evangelicals, when I can’t read or write and can’t go out walking, and don’t want to just tear my hair and destroy myself, I put on, here in New Haven, cable channel thirteen and I watch rock television endlessly. As a sheer revelation of the American religion it’s overwhelming. Yes, I like to watch the dancing girls too. The sex part of it is fine. Occasionally it’s musically interesting, but you know, ninety-nine out of a hundred groups are just bilge. And there hasn’t been any good American rock since, alas, The Band disbanded.

I watch MTV endlessly, my dear, because what is going on there, not just in the lyrics but in its whole ambience, is the real vision of what the country needs and desires. It’s the image of reality that it sees, and it’s quite weird and wonderful. It confirms exactly these two points: first, that no matter how many are on the screen at once, not one of them feels free except in total self-exaltation. And second, it comes through again and again in the lyrics and the way one dances, the way one moves, that what is best and purest in one is just no part of the creation—that myth of an essential purity before and beyond experience never goes away. It’s quite fascinating.

[Harold Bloom No.2408660]

>>2408657
And notice how pervasive it is! I spent a month in Rome lecturing and I was so exhausted at the end of each day that my son David and I cheerfully watched the Italian mtv. I stared and I just couldn’t believe it. Italian MTV is a sheer parody of its American counterpart, with some amazing consequences—the American religion has made its way even into Rome! It is nothing but a religious phenomenon. Very weird to see it take place.

[Anonymous No.2408663]

>>2408660
>>2408657
Harold Bloom confirmed for bro.

I love him dearly.

[Anonymous No.2408665]

he's correct.

[Anonymous No.2408679]

>>2408660
>>2408657
>>2408647
Harold Bloom watches MTV?!

Holy shit, man. My head exploded.

Nice.

[Anonymous No.2408683]

It's interesting that /lit/ is actually very conservative when it comes to theory.

[Anonymous No.2408700]

>>2408683
Theory can never teach you anything about art. Theory will teach you about theory.

Bloom is right. Wittgenstein is right. Theory is dated and stale.

[Anonymous No.2408703]

>>2408700

Theory is dated, so the answer is to go back to even more archaic methods?

[Anonymous No.2408707]

>>2408703
Were there ever archaic methods?

[Anonymous No.2408712]

>>2408707

No, we started having literature classes around 1965.

[Anonymous No.2408718]

how has theory ever helped anybody? srs question is srs. im a true pleb.

what has theory done for literature? for society? for anything? how is it not just occasionally interesting masturbation?

[Anonymous No.2408727]

>>2408703
In place of a hermeneutics of art, we need an erotics of art.

Not that theory is that archaic, it's just not that enlightening or useful. I think it's really difficult to make good use of theory, mostly it's just shit. You need to be a really skilled critic to use theory well, most are mediocre and use theory as a crutch.

[Anonymous No.2408777]

>>2408718
It's the humanities trying to turn itself into a science. Post-structuralism is the worst. If you go back to Freud/early Marx, the Frankfurt school, it was alright as theory.

But theory post-WWII, is just some annoying drivel now. French theorists yapping back and forth. They don't really care what they're saying, they're speaking french and the french love to hear themselves talk and talk loudly.

But theory has never had any practical implications at all.

[Anonymous No.2408849]

>>2408777
i agree that a lot of the post-structuralist stuff is gay (or at least obfuscated or above my head), but some of it isn't bad. i thought discipline and punish, society of the spectacle, and simulacra and simulation were all worth reading.

[Anonymous No.2408862]

>>2408727
So basically, you need to be a skilled critic to do criticism well. Got it.

[Anonymous No.2408922]

>>2408466
>He rejects most criticism and theory

As every sane person does

I dunno how a thinking person can take english class and not see it for the dog shit it is.

[Anonymous No.2408987]

Is Harold Bloom becoming Nabokov? i.e. his literary theories and ideas are being kept around simply as a novelty.

[Anonymous No.2409001]

>>2408987
whose literary theories are worth reading these days?