Harold Bloom's Master List

[Jackson Richardson]

Thank you for the clarification, JBI. I didn't know the background - I just enjoy reading. In a sense I do believe in a canon - not all writing is equally significant. But the contents of the canon will change over time and in language groups.

[Poetaster]

As someone who has digested a large chunk of the Western and a so called East-Asian Canon, I can say that the list is good for 1994. The list is written in regard to a cultural war, with the direct intention of contradicting major shifts in English departments since the 80s. In that sense, the Canon won in the end; theory is over and we are back to the classics more or less along the lines of Bloom, perhaps narrower at the top for non-specialists.

What do you mean 'theory is over'? I'm curious. I hope you are right! During my MA last year it was all theory though - Baktin and New Historicism and all that. I didn't like it, thought it was ridiculous to read texts with an ideological lens, but it seemed all-pervasive.

[JBI]

Basically the traditional methods of scholarship are two fold; historical understanding (biography, context, historical trends), and textual (concerned with interpreting passages based on definition of difficult/problematic words, alternative versions, possible interpretation, rhetorical usage, and corruption). By the 20th century there emerged a third type; literary theory, which seeks to question the nature of the text in a theoretical sense, the way metaphysics discuss existence.

In general, for modern literature, where the interpretive textual issues are less pronounced (than lets say the Bible, and its linguistic difficulties), there emerged a sort of necessity to create more material; more interpretive range and debate if you will. Certainly the academy needed a justification for why it keeps reading, one that sees tenure awarded to people discussing make believe characters. Rhetoric is more or less objective, and generally there was still a strong historical contextualization process; but by the 80s historical inquiry and context yielded in the face of purely theoretical things; authors being discussed who seem not to fit into the historical development of literature, and seem not to be part of the traditional discourse became central.

So instead of suggesting the work in an historical context, we suggest the text has specific characateristics that can be discerned; gay writing contains gay codes that can be theorized and plotted; colonial works contain marks of a colonial infrastructure, and various theoretical diagrams were drawn to show this. As of 2010 I would say the trend has been to abandon this almost entirely.

We can see literary studies as two main branches in general; history and theory, with theory more common the closer you get to the current time. Right now, it would appear history is making a very, very strong come back, so much so that theory seems all but pushed out, in favor of more traditional methods of reading. In gleneral the only objective form of literary scholarship is textual (for instance, organizing better editions of Shakespeare), so it is only natural that a field which creates theoretical diagrams about imaginary characters went out of fashion.

[Poetaster]

Great stuff. To be honest, I'm so pleased you said that.

I hated theory during my MA. Found it far too opaque and ideological to be objective and serious, and sometimes it seemed to be a little better than a lot of fancy words describing fairly simple observations, really.

[Jack of Hearts]

The problem with these sad lists is-- how would you know?

Book lists are little better than advertising, or regurgitation. At least we might assume from Professor Bloom's list that he actually read the works. Whether or not we agree with the socialization that almost certainly led to his inclusions-- how else would you know?

How would you know? Or, to say another way... How do you find a book?

Is searching for a book as random as pulling off the library stack? JoH has done this. But who could exclusively find a book this way?

So we sort of want a recommendation, or a 'book list.' That they all suck and are wrong is besides the point. Even a recommendation a friend might make probably has more to do with a social aspect than actual literary value or aesthetic appeal. Your friend Douglas really liked reading "Love's Labour's Lost." She thinks you would enjoy reading it, too. But how does she know the name 'Shakespeare' in the first place?












J

[Jacek Pudlo]

Since I'm no literary expert I have learned a lot from Bloom's book the Western Canon and from his list at the end of the book on the greatest works from ancient times to when the book was written in 1994.

I have a great deal of respect for Bloom, but I do disagree with his list on a few points. I don't see Sinclair Lewis as a canonical novelist, not by a long stretch. The inclusion of Cynthia Ozick is another mystery. I didn't find The Messiah of Stockholm remarkable.

[desiresjab]

Just expressing myself. Sometimes it comes out in 1,000 words, not less, but alas, I am not ashamed. I can "cringe" as much as I want though that would not have been my word for it but we all have our words. You have yours and I have mine. And yes, God bless. ha.

Don't apologize, HW, that was a fine post. Now I will not have to mention abouty twenty good points. Some very scholarly words and salient points, as well, by JBL.

To me the value of a list like this from the canon is not precisely what is on it, for there is room only for 20 where 200 would easily qualify. If people besides literature students would read any 20 out of these 200 classics, Bloom would be thrilled, as you and I would be with our citizenry, regardless of our country. The value of a list is in the implicit statement that literature is still important enough to make such a list, and the implicit hope that people will read some books recognized as great by a loose consensus of experts.

[Drkshadow03]

Take such lists for what they are . . . reading recommendations based on an expert's opinion and experience reading some of the great works of literature. As long as a person doesn't mistake it for THE Western Canon, the immutable word on the subject with every possible work that any critic might suggest, then it's a very good and extensive list of works a person might wish to read.

[prendrelemick]

I find the Amazon Lowest price first list very helpful.