Harold Bloom

[ajvenigalla]

Like, Pierre, you take a very broad, unfounded swipe at many schools of criticism. So, I'll repeat my questions I made to Pierre to you, Wickes:

1. There are many talented Marxist Scholars, Gender scholars, and Post-Colonial scholars who have done excellent work in literary criticism; identity politics is not an area of study. Some of these scholars include Frederic Jameson, Terry Eagleton, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Edward Said, Iban Hassan, Homhi Babha, Elaine Scarry, Toril Moi, Margaret Ferguson, Stephen Greenblatt, Houston Baker, and Henry Louis Gates. Which of these critics have you found to be "insular and self-serving" and why?

2. what exactly are your problems with these following schools of criticism and why--Marxist criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism (which Bloom practiced), Feminist criticism, and Post-Colonial criticism/Race-oriented criticism. What are your specific problems with these schools of criticism practiced by thousands of scholars throughout the world?

If you truly have a problem with these schools of criticism, you should be able to answer these question. I'm sure you--as an adult--are aware that the teachers in one university and/or one errant tutor does not negate the legitimacy of entire schools of thought. So, I look forward to your answers.

Well, I will add some of my own contributions.

1. Sure there are talented Marxist scholars. No one really disagrees with that.

2. I won't speak for WICKES, but I will express some of my problems, as influenced by Bloom: oftentimes these schools, while valuable at times for whatever contributions can give, can become so caught up in their ideologies that they feel to appreciate the primary aesthetic value of literature that Harold Bloom so tirelessly defends. The schools you mentioned, Pike, would, if they were extreme in their views and had the chance to do so, would likely erase such classic literary works as The Aenid, The Brothers Karamazov, Beowulf, and other works that don't fit their ideology to a T. I believe this is sort of what Bloom speaks of in his "School of Resentment" theory. Then stuff like racism, sexism, and other things will be used as factors for determining worthy works. In a sense, these schools of criticism almost share the same guilt with the right-wing ideologues who oppose some literary works for not being right-wing ideology.

Oh, BTW, I'm 16, and I am not too much of an expert on literature or literary criticism. So there's that.

[ajvenigalla]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...literary-faith

This review for Bloom's new book, which is officially coming out tomorrow

[Pike Bishop]

Well, I will add some of my own contributions.

1. Sure there are talented Marxist scholars. No one really disagrees with that.

2. I won't speak for WICKES, but I will express some of my problems, as influenced by Bloom: oftentimes these schools, while valuable at times for whatever contributions can give, can become so caught up in their ideologies that they feel to appreciate the primary aesthetic value of literature that Harold Bloom so tirelessly defends. The schools you mentioned, Pike, would, if they were extreme in their views and had the chance to do so, would likely erase such classic literary works as The Aenid, The Brothers Karamazov, Beowulf, and other works that don't fit their ideology to a T. I believe this is sort of what Bloom speaks of in his "School of Resentment" theory. Then stuff like racism, sexism, and other things will be used as factors for determining worthy works. In a sense, these schools of criticism almost share the same guilt with the right-wing ideologues who oppose some literary works for not being right-wing ideology.

Oh, BTW, I'm 16, and I am not too much of an expert on literature or literary criticism. So there's that.

1. I'm sure you don't disagree with it, but Wickes and Pierre certainly didn't imply they disagree with it. Also, there are also many talented Feminist scholars and Post-Colonial scholars as well. I listed some in my posts.

2. I'm saying this respectfully, Ajveniglia, because I do respect you and your opinion. Your argument is specious. All modes and schools of criticism are damaging when they are extremist. That includes the psychoanalytic and "New Criticism" approaches Bloom takes. Bloom, himself, is hardly tempered in his critical evaluations, and his dismissive "School of Resentment" phrase that inaccurately and irrationally dismisses all critical schools he doesn't like. There are excellent Feminist scholars and Post-Colonial/Race Theory scholars; again, I listed many of them. You can't condemn any school of thought for its extremist, idiotic adherents. You also can't do so until you have read and addressed their best, most talented adherents.

3. Well, for 16, you're already savvier and better read than most of the "grown-ups" on this Forum. I will, however, give you some advice I gave my own 16-year-old son who is also an avid reader of philosophy and literature: Never make "blanket" statements unless you can support the requisite entirety of it. And if you think you can do so, you probably haven't thought about it enough.

[ajvenigalla]

^ thanks Pike.

However, I will make blanket statements at times. There is a time to do such things.

[Pike Bishop]

^ thanks Pike.

However, I will make blanket statements at times. There is a time to do such things.

Not if you want to speak cogently and intelligently in areas of philosophy and aesthetics...and near-consensually true statements like "the Nazis were bad" aren't blanket statements. As your misstatement about the "School of Resentment" critics showed, incorrect blanket statements just show both a lack of knowledge of the subject and a willingness to speak emphatically without that knowledge.

You are of course, free, to speak however you like on those subjects, and I look forward to your doing so.

[ajvenigalla]

^ thanks bro for clarifying what you meant.

[Pierre Menard]

1. You are aware there are many talented Marxist Scholars, Gender scholars, and Post-Colonial scholars who have done excellent work in literary criticism; identity politics is not an area of study. Some of these scholars include Frederic Jameson, Terry Eagleton, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Edward Said, Iban Hassan, Homhi Babha, Elaine Scarry, Toril Moi, Margaret Ferguson, Stephen Greenblatt, Houston Baker, and Henry Louis Gates. Which of these critics have you found to be "insular and self-serving" and why? Also, you are aware that any critical approach--even just reading the "text"--can be insular and self-serving.

2. Again, you are being a little vague here. As I said before, any critical approach--explicitly theoretical or not--can be used as an ideological tool. Many of the New Critics who espoused reading only for the "text" had their ideologies as well. And you certainly can't hold a theoretical approach responsible for its terrible internet adherents. There are internet idiots espousing anything.

3. I have been a literature teacher for 20 years. I have never encountered a fellow scholar dismiss a text in any criticism for not fitting their present day morals; most great works of literature don't. So, I think you're being a bit alarmist. If you can provide me with some scholarship that does that I will stand corrected.

4. Finally, what exactly are your problems with these following schools of criticism and why--Marxist criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism (which Bloom practiced), Feminist criticism, and Post-Colonial criticism/Race-oriented criticism. What are your specific problems with these schools of criticism practiced by thousands of scholars throughout the world?

You're very focused on scholars and scholars alone. Not every teacher is a scholar, not everyone who espouses such ideas are famous scholars. And I was talking largely about the seed of the ideas that have seeped into wider culture. Now you are probably right in that there are a lot of people who simply misunderstand or radicalise these ideas and get them wrong. Idiots tend to do that. However, I doubt that all of the sheer, sheer amount of people in wider culture who view literature through such a politicised lens are idiots who have misinterpreted the things they've learned within these disciplines. My problem is that when your structural framework is not the text first and foremost (on a literary/aesthetic level), but rather, socio-political ideas, then yes, you do open up literature to be dismissed on political grounds, you do open up to the idiots who are unable to appreciated literature on it's artistic merits.

There's also a difference between being self-serving in focusing on the inherent artistic aspects of an artistic text (like New Criticism), and self-serving in a way to satisfy you're ideological view of the world. Or maybe, I just prefer one over the other, and that's the whole point.

Look, Greenblatt has written some really solid stuff on Shakespeare, undeniable, Eagleton is hit and miss (though his straight political writings are laughable), Said I wouldn't consider a great literary critic, and the others I only have passing knowledge of…but how are we describing great here? Are these writers truly great writers or just scholars you enjoy? Do we know if any of these people will actually last? A few might, a few will probably fall by the wayside. They've had an influence no doubt, an influence I seem to be bemoaning (but again, the disciplines go beyond these writers, and that's where my ire lies), but will they be any greater than the numerous, numerous critics that wrote about every major literary theory throughout history but didn't last, outside of a very few? That's still to be seen. Bloom probably won't last either, Pater did it better and he's lasted.
But again we're getting hung up on these scholars, and the absolute top of the top scholars are not all I was talking about because the disciplines are now broader then them.

I've already said that Bloom's pronouncements about these the classics dying at the university are over-blown and so on. But there is that influence in wider culture (and this could come from teachers, lesser scholars, etc, not necessarily the people you've mentioned), and I think it's had a negative influence on certain artistic discourse.

[Pike Bishop]

1.You're very focused on scholars and scholars alone. Not every teacher is a scholar, not everyone who espouses such ideas are famous scholars. And I was talking largely about the seed of the ideas that have seeped into wider culture. Now you are probably right in that there are a lot of people who simply misunderstand or radicalise these ideas and get them wrong. Idiots tend to do that. However, I doubt that all of the sheer, sheer amount of people in wider culture who view literature through such a politicised lens are idiots who have misinterpreted the things they've learned within these disciplines.

2.My problem is that when your structural framework is not the text first and foremost (on a literary/aesthetic level), but rather, socio-political ideas, then yes, you do open up literature to be dismissed on political grounds, you do open up to the idiots who are unable to appreciated literature on it's artistic merits.

3. There's also a difference between being self-serving in focusing on the inherent artistic aspects of an artistic text (like New Criticism), and self-serving in a way to satisfy you're ideological view of the world. Or maybe, I just prefer one over the other, and that's the whole point.

4. Look, Greenblatt has written some really solid stuff on Shakespeare, undeniable, Eagleton is hit and miss (though his straight political writings are laughable), Said I wouldn't consider a great literary critic, and the others I only have passing knowledge of…but how are we describing great here? Are these writers truly great writers or just scholars you enjoy? Do we know if any of these people will actually last? A few might, a few will probably fall by the wayside. They've had an influence no doubt, an influence I seem to be bemoaning (but again, the disciplines go beyond these writers, and that's where my ire lies), but will they be any greater than the numerous, numerous critics that wrote about every major literary theory throughout history but didn't last, outside of a very few? That's still to be seen. Bloom probably won't last either, Pater did it better and he's lasted.
But again we're getting hung up on these scholars, and the absolute top of the top scholars are not all I was talking about because the disciplines are now broader then them.

5.I've already said that Bloom's pronouncements about these the classics dying at the university are over-blown and so on. But there is that influence in wider culture (and this could come from teachers, lesser scholars, etc, not necessarily the people you've mentioned), and I think it's had a negative influence on certain artistic discourse.

1. I'm not focused on scholars and scholars alone; you just mistakenly neglected them in your first post. Scholars/professional critics are the exemplars of their critical schools. You cannot deride those schools by ignoring those scholars--particularly their best ones--and focusing on the bad students and teachers representing those schools; that's bad, disingenuous criticism. All critical schools, including yours and Bloom's have bad "members" who do not aptly represent their theoretical schools.

2. All the scholars and critics I mention address the text first; they just do so--just like Bloom--through particular critical lenses acknowledging realities of the text and the world. So, your criticisms of their critical schools, themselves, are both unfounded and hollow.

3. There is no difference between the two. Both are self-serving and based on unproven and incomplete premises. It is just a matter of preference, and your preference is hardly inherently correct.

4. Firstly, try to avoid saying "look" in a literary conversation. It presumes you have a superior position of authority; you don't have it. Secondly, all you said was irrelevant to my question. You clearly haven't read most of the top representatives of the critical schools you erroneously deride. That completely undermines that derision. And your asking if those critics will last is an irrelevant red herring. They have already written excellent criticism that has influenced thousands of scholars and have legitimated their critical schools...and Greenblatt, a New Historicist, has never just read the text.

5. Finally, you have shown--as with your unfounded dismissal of Said--you do not have the sufficient knowledge to address, much less criticize, the theoretical schools you erroneously deride. And you also fail to realize your adulation for Bloom is also hypocritical. His Romantic "read the text and only the text" approach is as theoretically unproven and incomplete as the critical schools you deride. One cannot effectively read Absalom, Absalom without some knowledge of the history of race and miscegenation in the American South. And one cannot read As You Like It without some knowledge of gender and gender roles in the English Renaissance. And nobody can read the text without bringing their extra-textual knowledge and bias to that reading. Both Bloom and you fail to grasp all of this...you even moreso than Bloom.


P.s. You still never answered or addressed this question from my last post: "Finally, what exactly are your problems with these following schools of criticism and why--Marxist criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism (which Bloom practiced), Feminist criticism, and Post-Colonial criticism/Race-oriented criticism. What are your specific problems with these schools of criticism practiced by thousands of scholars throughout the world?"

Try to address the actual precepts of these schools of criticism, as well as how they're practiced by actual top scholars, this time...not just the idiotic students and teachers who apply those precepts poorly, if they even appply them at all.

[Pierre Menard]

1. Considering I was talking primarily about general audiences, and those influenced by the schools of thought, the scholars weren't overly relevant initially. The schools and the disciplines exist beyond those thinkers, they've evolved through the interpretation of those schools, and that's where my criticism lies. In saying that, there are inherent aspects of the original and/or top thinkers in these fields that inherently open up the wider general interpretations that I have issues with. However, I never said these people aren't capable of great thoughts or ideas, Greenblatt for example is an interesting writer, and i'm particularly fond of his intro to Thomas Browne's work I'm currently reading. I'd also argue he and people within his school are nowhere near as ideologically motivated as the other schools.

2. Difference between starting with the framework of aesthetics and what artistic aspects of a work are, and starting with the text through an ideological framework.

3. There's a difference in the value they place on the technical/artistic qualities of the text. Of course it's a matter of preference, obviously. Nor have I said I'm inherently correct, so pointless observation.

4. "Look" can also be used in a conversational way or as way to be more direct in a point…hell, to be honest, it's just the way I start sentences sometimes, and I'll say it if I damn well please. You'll get over it. Influencing other 'scholars' is nice, but not all scholars are made of the same stuff. You say the word 'scholar' as if it has inherent importance. It's dependent on the individual in question. There is a ton of political scholars for example who have their schools, and the support of many scholars, but are also largely full of **** (I think of Marxist-economics for example), the same thing is applicable in history and art history and so on. Having an established school doesn't inherently mean one has to follow the school of thought and or agree with it, and the lasting influence and whether or not their texts last, is without doubt important in the same way the question of whether or not literature last is important.

5. "Theoretically unproven"…well, all schools of literary criticism are 'theoretically unproven'…so what? There's no such thing as a theoretically proven literary theory, nor have I said so, so again, irrelevant point. There's schools of criticism one prefers, and ones you don't, haven't said otherwise. Yes, a knowledge of the history of race is important in Southern literature, etc etc, and I haven't said otherwise, a knowledge of the times, and critics that elucidate these themes can be important, but it can also be done without ideological frameworks (much in the same way that the wonderful scholarship explaining theological references in Dante has been done numerous times). Elucidating on themes is fine, and a part of approaching the artistic aspects of the text. There's a difference between that, and say, Marxist criticism whose starting points are inherently ideological and socio-political, it's this sort of criticism, and the wider interpretation of this criticism that I have issues with. There's also a difference between that, and certain personal biases we bring in, that can be overcome or at least put on the back burner most of the time. Beyond that, I'm not a Bloom cultist, nor am I of a 'school'. I think Bloom is hypocritical when talking about Eliot, and some of his Freudian heavy stuff goes too far sometimes as well, but no one is perfect, and I think aspects of his thought are important in these matters and combating the excess of these schools. But my enjoyment of Bloom has predominantly always been his sheer passion when talking about literature, which is important in of itself.


Your wanting of specific problems is irrelevant, as I've made it abundantly clear that I believe there are inherent broader issues fundamentally by looking at something through an ideological framework. It can take away from the technical/artistic aspects that an artist has devoted their time to, the thing that separates art from simple polemics (if in painting, one only focused on the socio-political meaning behind the painting, and not the art itself, it cheapens the artistic aspect of the work and I have issues with that and see similar things within that type of literary criticism). The inherent issue of that is applicable in most of those schools and inherently opens up the possibility of poor interpretation.

[Pike Bishop]

1. Considering I was talking primarily about general audiences, and those influenced by the schools of thought, the scholars weren't overly relevant initially. The schools and the disciplines exist beyond those thinkers, they've evolved through the interpretation of those schools, and that's where my criticism lies. In saying that, there are inherent aspects of the original and/or top thinkers in these fields that inherently open up the wider general interpretations that I have issues with. However, I never said these people aren't capable of great thoughts or ideas, Greenblatt for example is an interesting writer, and i'm particularly fond of his intro to Thomas Browne's work I'm currently reading. I'd also argue he and people within his school are nowhere near as ideologically motivated as the other schools.

2. Difference between starting with the framework of aesthetics and what artistic aspects of a work are, and starting with the text through an ideological framework.

3. There's a difference in the value they place on the technical/artistic qualities of the text. Of course it's a matter of preference, obviously. Nor have I said I'm inherently correct, so pointless observation.

4. "Look" can also be used in a conversational way or as way to be more direct in a point…hell, to be honest, it's just the way I start sentences sometimes, and I'll say it if I damn well please. You'll get over it. Influencing other 'scholars' is nice, but not all scholars are made of the same stuff. You say the word 'scholar' as if it has inherent importance. It's dependent on the individual in question. There is a ton of political scholars for example who have their schools, and the support of many scholars, but are also largely full of **** (I think of Marxist-economics for example), the same thing is applicable in history and art history and so on. Having an established school doesn't inherently mean one has to follow the school of thought and or agree with it, and the lasting influence and whether or not their texts last, is without doubt important in the same way the question of whether or not literature last is important.

5. "Theoretically unproven"…well, all schools of literary criticism are 'theoretically unproven'…so what? There's no such thing as a theoretically proven literary theory, nor have I said so, so again, irrelevant point. There's schools of criticism one prefers, and ones you don't, haven't said otherwise. Yes, a knowledge of the history of race is important in Southern literature, etc etc, and I haven't said otherwise, a knowledge of the times, and critics that elucidate these themes can be important, but it can also be done without ideological frameworks (much in the same way that the wonderful scholarship explaining theological references in Dante has been done numerous times). Elucidating on themes is fine, and a part of approaching the artistic aspects of the text. There's a difference between that, and say, Marxist criticism whose starting points are inherently ideological and socio-political, it's this sort of criticism, and the wider interpretation of this criticism that I have issues with. There's also a difference between that, and certain personal biases we bring in, that can be overcome or at least put on the back burner most of the time. Beyond that, I'm not a Bloom cultist, nor am I of a 'school'. I think Bloom is hypocritical when talking about Eliot, and some of his Freudian heavy stuff goes too far sometimes as well, but no one is perfect, and I think aspects of his thought are important in these matters and combating the excess of these schools. But my enjoyment of Bloom has predominantly always been his sheer passion when talking about literature, which is important in of itself.


6. Your wanting of specific problems is irrelevant, as I've made it abundantly clear that I believe there are inherent broader issues fundamentally by looking at something through an ideological framework. It can take away from the technical/artistic aspects that an artist has devoted their time to, the thing that separates art from simple polemics (if in painting, one only focused on the socio-political meaning behind the painting, and not the art itself, it cheapens the artistic aspect of the work and I have issues with that and see similar things within that type of literary criticism). The inherent issue of that is applicable in most of those schools and inherently opens up the possibility of poor interpretation.

1. You were also deriding/criticizing the schools of thought themselves. So, the scholars were, and are overly, relevant. Your unfamiliarity with, and inability to address, those scholars significantly undermines and counters your erroneous criticisms of those schools of thought.

2. Firstly, all critics and readers start with an ideological framework. To think otherwise is unrealistic and naive. Bloom, like all critics has an ideological framework of what a "good" text is before he starts reading, and he also has an ideological framework of critical views and experiences preceding his reading of any test. Secondly, as I said before, all the best scholars and adherents of the critical schools you mistakenly deride address the text first without imprinting their ideological framework on it.

3. No, that is not a difference. The quality scholars and adherents of the critical schools you erroneously deride place just as much emphasis on the technical/artistic qualities of the text as Bloom does. And my observation isn't pointless at all. You made an unfounded claim just like "there's a difference in the value they place on the technical/artistic qualities of the text." This implies you don't feel you need to back such inaccurate claims up, suggesting you could just believe your view is inherently correct.

4. Well, if you feel that way, then I will address you any damn way I please. You'll get over it. And I never said all scholars are "made of the same stuff." That's a red herring and a straw man (nice combo), just like the rest of your muddled paragraph. As I said in my paragraph to which you responded, You clearly haven't read most of the top representatives of the critical schools you erroneously deride. That greatly undermines your already significantly flawed stance. Regardless of their less talented adherents, those scholars have established and developed substantial and important critical schools you have yet to effectively criticize in any way.

5. "Theoretically unproven" is entirely relevant. You argue, without any adequate syllogistical or evidentiary support that Bloom's approach is superior to the approaches you deride without support. So, the fact Bloom's approach is no more theoretically proven than those approaches means you truly need to support your criticisms of them. You have definitely yet to do so.

And addressing historical issues of race in Absalom, Absalom is both a race theory approach, since it addresses the dynamics of race in the text, and a Marxist criticism approach, since it addresses the fact the dynamics of the text and the writing of it partially arise from historical material realities outside the author and the text. So, you just gave your stamp of approval on those critical schools. Well done. And Marxist criticism is no more inherently ideological and socio-political than Bloom's and your quasi-New Criticism school...yes, you are espousing that school of thought. To eschew extra-textual realities and thought when reading--which one can never really do--is just as ideological and socio-political as recognizing them when reading. And, by the way, most of the critics, scholars, and readers adhering to the latter belief are just as passionate about literature, and talking about it, as you and Bloom.

6. My wanting you to address specific problems of the schools you erroneously deride, as well as those specific schools themselves, is entirely relevant. If you are going to criticize them without actually addressing them, and incorrectly claim they take away from the technical/artistic aspects, you absolutely have to address the specific problems of those critical schools. Otherwise, the only one making a polemic is you. Any child can just falsely say something is "inherently" bad or wrong; grown-ups specifically explain why they're wrong and back their explanations up with evidence. You have yet to do so.

You clearly have little knowledge of these critical schools, and your inability to actually address them or their primary scholars shows that. The best you can do is throw out the inaccurate and unfounded statement: "most of those schools and inherently opens up the possibility of poor interpretation." As I said before, even a child could make such a hollow claim. So, I suggest you actually read some of the scholars of these valuable critical schools and actually get a grasp of their actual precepts and approaches. Until you do, your criticisms of them remain hollow and unsupported.

[Bartlebooth]

I read and loved his book on Shakespeare. Whether you agree with his central argument, that Shakespeare somehow laid down the archetypes of modern personality, it is a beautifully written celebration of the plays, and a wonderful introduction to them. He wrote some very interesting stuff on Milton and Blake as well. I am also with him in his contempt for the rigid, narrow categories into which modern critics try to jam great literature (feminist, post-colonial, multicultural, post-modern, post-feminist etc etc). And I share his view that many of these critics don't even like literature, seeing it instead as a means to further their left wing, 'post-whatever' agenda. It is a shame he is so old now. Who will succeed him? The university I went to was so dominated by trendy, left-wing multiculturalists that I was afraid to open my mouth. My tutor was an aggressive, touchy young black woman who specialized in writers like Toni Morrison and Alice Walker. She seemed to know little about (and care even less) the canon, which no doubt she privately dismissed as a conspiracy to keep ethnic minorities in their place. Bloom is right to be pessimistic.

I haven't read Bloom's works myself, but I feel that a complete dismissal of feminist, multicultural, and other critical lenses is unfair. Perhaps you had a different experience with these schools of thought, but in the classes I have recently taken, I feel that my professors are less concerned with imposing ideological ideas on a text so much as considering their latent political aspects. And I don't think these approaches are attempting to place texts into narrow categories. If I explored a feminist reading of a text, that wouldn't necessary mean that the text would only be meaningful in its relation to issues of sex, sexuality, and gender. Rather, I would just be highlighting particular aspects of the text that seemed significant among its other nuances. In general, I think that more perspectives considering texts in different lights is always more valuable.

[ajvenigalla]

Finally. The Daemon Knows, Bloom's new book, is released.

[JBI]

1. You are aware there are many talented Marxist Scholars, Gender scholars, and Post-Colonial scholars who have done excellent work in literary criticism; identity politics is not an area of study. Some of these scholars include Frederic Jameson, Terry Eagleton, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Edward Said, Iban Hassan, Homhi Babha, Elaine Scarry, Toril Moi, Margaret Ferguson, Stephen Greenblatt, Houston Baker, and Henry Louis Gates. Which of these critics have you found to be "insular and self-serving" and why? Also, you are aware that any critical approach--even just reading the "text"--can be insular and self-serving.

2. Again, you are being a little vague here. As I said before, any critical approach--explicitly theoretical or not--can be used as an ideological tool. Many of the New Critics who espoused reading only for the "text" had their ideologies as well. And you certainly can't hold a theoretical approach responsible for its terrible internet adherents. There are internet idiots espousing anything.

3. I have been a literature teacher for 20 years. I have never encountered a fellow scholar dismiss a text in any criticism for not fitting their present day morals; most great works of literature don't. So, I think you're being a bit alarmist. If you can provide me with some scholarship that does that I will stand corrected.

4. Finally, what exactly are your problems with these following schools of criticism and why--Marxist criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism (which Bloom practiced), Feminist criticism, and Post-Colonial criticism/Race-oriented criticism. What are your specific problems with these schools of criticism practiced by thousands of scholars throughout the world?

No offense, but half those critics did damage and third rate scholarship. Either bad history or mediocre philosophy that was hardly relevant, and hardly scholarly.

The great question of the purpose of scholarship should always be central, and most of the scholars, by focusing on a reining ideology missed the greater picture of the scholarship to which they were contributing.

Not saying Bloom is some scholarly god, but the fact of the matter is he is pretty much the most significant scholar of the past 50 years to have had an appeal outside of the academic circles, while maintaining a significant scholarly contribution within the academy.

That being said, I do not research Western Literature, or the Western Canon, and the Chinese canon is significantly different. Still, I will give credit where credit is due, and I would say he has been successful, like no other American critic of late, in encouraging the reading of great works of literature amongst the population. By necessity of that alone, one has to have a great deal of respect for the insight to communicate interesting ideas, and encouraging things to a general population.

[JCamilo]

JBI, any evidence that he was effective encouraging the reading of classics or he just managed to reach the public that already had a tendency to consume those classics?

[JBI]

Read the above posts on this forum. His books have sold quite well, which points to a general reception of his ideas. Does that mean he encourages more readers? well, certain posters have indicated that already above. Certainly his list of books has been circulated quite a bit around - perhaps more so than his essays - but still, one can say he foregrounded them in a public space, instead of someone like my Post-Colonial studies professor insisting on the importance of Jamaica Kincaid, who, by any estimate, is a third-rate author.

As for the power to influence readership, I would say he has done much to promote certain poets over others. Whether this is effective or not is hard to tell, though I suspect his move toward fiction in the middle of his career was a way to talk about more commonly digested books (lets face it, there is not as large a public for poetry).

Then again, in the past 5-10 years or so literary Theory has pretty much been extinguished, and classicism, conservatism, and history are receiving more credit and publishing space, so perhaps his rants were listened to, or perhaps were prophetic. In terms of scholarship he has hardly been a big player in the past 30 odd-years, given that he hasn't come up with a single volume of critical textual work.

I would suspect Bloom himself feels a bit of guilt for promoting the canon over promoting the methodology of the canon, or rather, the textual, and linguistic tradition that is necessary for anybody wishing to deal with the canon. That is merely the product I guess of the American academy which is less preoccupied with the acquisition of languages for original research. English literature has often been the bottom of the academy, though Bloom himself has knowledge of classical languages which means he is more versatile then the third-rate critical approaches and theoreticians who read American novels and talk about gender issues - something irrelevant to most of us.