Let's discuss the best books of all time

[Ancalagon]

My three favorite books are:

1. Les Misérables - I confess I have not finished the book, but I loved the plot when I had to know the summary, for I fell in love with the musical before I fell in love with the book. I picked up the book in order to understand the musical's plot more easily. However, I soon found out that the book was much better than the musical. - I do not say this easily :p

2. Night - Though a recent book, I believe it's recent enough to call it one of the best books ever written. It's prose is marvelous and its message stunning. It's all true as well.

3. Watership Down - Yes, I like a book about bunnies. Though the author claims that it is not allegorical, it does reveal much about human nature. Its prose is excellent.

So my question to you is: What are the best books of all time? What are your favorites? Do you consider a difference between the two?

I'm sort of on a mission to read all of the best books ever written and I want to know your suggestions. :)

[mayneverhave]

May want to finish reading your favorite book first

Edit:

And, as to your question: yes there is a difference between the best and my favorite.

[Joreads]

The trouble is everyone has a different idea on what the "best books are". You know what you could do have a look at some of the "best" lists that are produced and start from there then you can make up your own mind. I know that here in Australia the bookshops compile lists from votes by readers.

My favorites would not be considered the best books written.

[kasie]

....I'm sort of on a mission to read all of the best books ever written and I want to know your suggestions. :)

Should keep you busy for the rest of your life. :)

(And yes, there is a difference between 'best' and 'favourite' - what you like now may horrify you in twenty years time! Though I still like the book about the bunnies, I must say...)

[johann cruyff]

I guess you could check out Harold Bloom's Western Canon (http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/theocraticcanon.html) for a pretty comprehensive list of the best books ever written and start from there...

[EricP]

According to J. Peder Zane's book "The Top Ten", the ten greatest books of all time are as follows:
1. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
3. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
4. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
7. The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
8. In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
9. The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov
10. Middlemarch by George Eliot

This list was compiled by Zane based on a survey of the opinions of 125 contemporary British and American authors. Not bad, but I'm surprised that Dostoyevsky appeared nowhere on the list.

As to whether my opinion of the best books and my personal favorites are different, I would say that they definitely are. For instance, Ngugi wa Thiong'o's "Devil on the Cross" and Jean Genet's "Querelle" would appear in my personal top ten favorite books, but I don't think either would be considered one of the ten best books of all time. My favorite novel is Nabokov's "Lolita", but I think that "The Brothers Karamazov" was the best novel ever written.

[kelby_lake]

Pretty hard. A lot of the stuff I think is very good would probably be sneered at if I were to suggest they were the best books written.

[stlukesguild]

According to J. Peder Zane's book "The Top Ten", the ten greatest books of all time are as follows:
1. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
3. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
4. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
7. The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
8. In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
9. The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov
10. Middlemarch by George Eliot

Zane must have been polling some rather middling writers in compiling this list. Hamlet, certainly... War and Peace... almost surely... In Search of Lost Time? Perhaps. But what of the Bible, the Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, the Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, the plays of Sophocles and Aeschylus, Montaigne's Essays, Leaves of Grass, Les Fleurs du mal, the collected poems of Petrarch, Donne, Keats, Shelley, Blake, Wordsworth, Holderlin, Goethe, etc...?

[JCamilo]

I would not mind any of those books, perhaps only Middlemarch or Great Gatsby is not what is close of "best book of all times" simple because i do not mind lists and I have no idea how this list was build. Except for Chekhov and Hamlet, they are all romance/novels (or a serie of romance novels as Proust), they do seem to share a trait of narrative and characters... anyways as you pointed, he does not seem to consider poems in his books.

[mayneverhave]

I guess it depends on how you define "book".

Although Paradise Lost is not on that list, neither is The Inferno, Odyssey, or Iliad - all obvious choices for top 10 lists.

Though it wouldn't be odd to see any of those three on a list like that, The Complete works of Keats?

Individual poems (like, say, The Waste Land) I could see, but entire collections of poetry seems another thing entirely.

The only one on that list st.luke's that I would really question is Chekhov, who, though hardly being bad, doesn't seem top 10 worthy - even without all the best poems on the list.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

That authors list is ridiculous. George Elliot and Mark Twain?! The Great Gatsby? Honestly, where on earth is Ulysses? And Kafka?

The omission of Ulysses is a crime. I know such things are subjective, but honestly....

[EricP]

If I remember correctly, each author compiled his or her own list, then Zane tallied up which books appeared the most times on all of the lists. I think he gave two points for books when they appeared as someone's first choice. Therefore, "Anna Karenina" appeared on the most top lists, often as a top choice. Hardly an ideal method, as those who have already commented have pointed out. "Huck Finn" and "Gatsby" stick out to me as undeserving, with several hugely more influential works not making the cut. I also noticed that despite the fac that the list specifies only the "best books", all the works are fiction. What about great works of science and philosophy? I glanced through the book quite some time ago, and I think the most interesting part was seeing the occasional strange, arbitrary choice finding its way into some lists.

[Ancalagon]

If you were the one making the list of the top 10 books of all time, what would be on it? This is my sinister method of getting book recommendations. I personally did not like Gatsby, and Tolstoy's two novels are my to-read list. What else should be there?

[johann cruyff]

If you were the one making the list of the top 10 books of all time, what would be on it? This is my sinister method of getting book recommendations. I personally did not like Gatsby, and Tolstoy's two novels are my to-read list. What else should be there?

Browse through the first few pages of the General Literature forum,you're bound to find at least 3-4 threads with recommendations and Top 10 lists ;)

[JCamilo]

Harold Bloom list is not bad at all, as biased it is. The problem of best book is not that it is subjective or not, it is first what maynervehave pointed, some authors of short stories and Poems have produced texts with 1, 2,3 pages that worth of War and Peace or Quixote, Keats is certainly one of the greats alongside Tolstoi or Flaubert, but not every single poem he wrote is genial in the same way not every single short story of Poe is genial. So, yeah, the Complete Poems or Short stories (insert here the name of the great writer) certainly is one of the best readings literature can offer but they are not, even near, a whole concept like a Romance is.

[kelby_lake]

if we're thinking top 10 best books of all time, we'd probably end up omitting this century. I looked at a bit of Ulysses. It looked a bit wierd.

[stlukesguild]

Harold Bloom list is not bad at all, as biased it is.

Of course every critic has his or her biases. Bloom's cannon is certainly one of the broadest or most inclusive. I must also admire the fact that he includes poets such as Robert Lowell whom he really does not like, but admits that considering all the others of an opposing opinion that it may just be him.

The problem of best book is not that it is subjective or not, it is first what maynervehave pointed, some authors of short stories and Poems have produced texts with 1, 2,3 pages that worth of War and Peace or Quixote...Keats is certainly one of the greats alongside Tolstoi or Flaubert, but not every single poem he wrote is genial in the same way not every single short story of Poe is genial. So, yeah, the Complete Poems or Short stories (insert here the name of the great writer) certainly is one of the best readings literature can offer but they are not, even near, a whole concept like a Romance is.

While I am certainly of the opinion that a small work can be a great work of art, I doubt I would ever go so far as to suggest that a single "perfect" poem of Keats or Shelley or perhaps a Checkov tale can equal Don Quixote or War and Peace. J.L. Borges, himself a master of smaller literary genre, tackles this subject in an essay in which he points out that even a good many mediocre poets have achieved that single "perfect" memorable sonnet, while Don Quixote and surely any other larger work is often far from perfect. Borges suggests that in spite of the "perfection" of the one and the "flaws" of the other, the great work like Don Quixote can never be matched by the mere perfect lyric. I tend to agree. As much as I love Blake's Tyger or Shelley's Ozymandias, or any number of other lyrics, I don't think I could honestly dare to suggest that they are equal to Don Quixote, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc... You suggest that it is unfair to compare the collected poems of Keats or Donne with the great novel or epic poem due to the fact of inconsistency in the former. I would suggest that in this they are closer the larger works or literature... almost any of which have their flaws or moments of lapse. I also find that I would be far more likely to be impressed by a writer's abilities to carry on over the long run... to show some mastery of breadth and depth and variety, be this through a collection of shorter poems or the single epic work. This would be no less true of an artist in any art form. If all Chopin had composed was one of those exquisite nocturnes there is no way I could seriously place him as an equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann... all of those marvelous "little" works together, however, certainly add up to a formidable artistic achievement.

[JBI]

One can hold lets say, Wordsworth's work written 1797-1807+his prelude up against Don Quixote easily. Selected works verses the big works match, as with poetry, it is a reflection of the artist over a period of time, and a collection of works develops like a narrative, if read chronologically. To exclude lyric poets in the "best books of all time" list is surely somewhat a mistake.

And, I do believe the selected poems of Keats, or even the complete poems hold up with the strongest novels. Sure, he had his mediocre moments (who doesn't, who has everything he wrote examined to the core, including personal notebooks and manuscripts) but he has moments which are unforgettable. No body is pulling out the mediocre short stories of Tolstoy and saying Ha, he wasn't perfect either. They are narrowing the playing field.

To exclude the lyric poets of the tradition is a mistake. Something like Keat's major long poems easily hold up against War and Peace, I would argue. Keats' odes too would seem to hold up against any number of major novels, in terms of influence, grandeur and depth.

As for Bloom's list, it is meant to be as a focus of his knowledge, as he is no expert literature beyond the English language, the same way he is on the English language. It is biased because the list is meant to be read by an American audience, and to be a guideline to American students.

In addition to this, the list isn't the book, but the appendixes. It is a suggestion and I highly doubt he meant it to be taken as seriously as it was. I personally feel he meant the actual scholarly work in the bulk of the book to be examined more thoroughly.

[Drkshadow03]

if we're thinking top 10 best books of all time, we'd probably end up omitting this century. I looked at a bit of Ulysses. It looked a bit wierd.

I am convinced there is no such thing as a top 10 list without Ulysses (I did find one where Ulysses was in spot "11" of a top 100 list). In most critical "best novels" list, however, Ulysses is almost guaranteed to have the 1-3 spot. Very predictable. It reminds me of top 100 horror movie lists (fan or critic-based), in the top 3 spots will almost always be The Exorcist and Jaws.

[Erichtho]

Harold Bloom list is not bad at all, as biased it is.

Of course every critic has his or her biases. Bloom's cannon is certainly one of the broadest or most inclusive. I must also admire the fact that he includes poets such as Robert Lowell whom he really does not like, but admits that considering all the others of an opposing opinion that it may just be him.

Constantly this stupid canon is being advertised on this forum, it really gets annoying. Why is it called the Western Canon? If he wanted it to be a somewhat representative Western canon he should have cut out 90% of the anglophone authors, or he should have been more honest and left out everyone else and named it The Anglophone Canon. In the way it is now, it doesn't make much sense to me.

[JBI]

Constantly this stupid canon is being advertised on this forum, it really gets annoying. Why is it called the Western Canon? If he wanted it to be a somewhat representative Western canon he should have cut out 90% of the anglophone authors, or he should have been more honest and left out everyone else and named it The Anglophone Canon. In the way it is now, it doesn't make much sense to me.
How many of the 27 major canons written about(I think I got the number right) are Anglophones? From my reading, I counted 13 non-English canons. Either way, it is a work of American criticism. How could one expect one single critic to be able to narrow down a full Western canon. There is not enough time to not just learn all the languages of the west, still spoken and dead, but to also read all of the literature within said languages, and not just be familiar with them, but to be able to write scholarship on them.

Bloom is writing for Americans. Everything he writes in that book reflects American, and English letters, since he is a teacher, and critic, of American, and English letters. There simply is too much for him to include in that list if he branches out beyond the major languages he has familiarity with.

As for the Appendices, those can be taken as a personal list, from all his knowledge of literature, and should not be taken as law. Of course, the Italians will read more Italian books, the Russians more Russian books, and the Swedish more Swedish books. He is American, therefore it makes sense for his knowledge to be primarily of American and English literature, and then secondarily on Western literatures, especially on those that influence American and English literature.

You are attacking one man's reading list for not including every odd book in the world. Even if he has read all those books in their original, which he hasn't, he already has 3000 works, which is far more than the average reader will ever be able to conquer in one lifetime. His major canons are what he decrees as essential, and they all are essential for the American audience, as he sees it.

I haven't seen a more complete list yet for an American scholar, perhaps you know of a better one? Can you possibly create such an all inclusive list, meanwhile maintaining that you have read every work in depth, most in the original? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt anyone else can, really. There perhaps are a few other critics with Bloom's expertise, but I can find none in the English speaking world with as wide a knowledge of literature.

[Scheherazade]

If you are unable to take part in the discussion without adding inflammatory comments,

please feel free not to join in.

[stlukesguild]

Constantly this stupid canon is being advertised on this forum, it really gets annoying. Why is it called the Western Canon? If he wanted it to be a somewhat representative Western canon he should have cut out 90% of the anglophone authors, or he should have been more honest and left out everyone else and named it The Anglophone Canon. In the way it is now, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Oh? And can you perhaps provide us with a more enlightened list? I admitted that any list is going to be biased and as JBI points out Bloom is a professor of English literature and so his focus is upon literature and literature that is accessible to the English-reading audience. I'm uncertain as to Bloom's own abilities in other languages outside of the fact that he is fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish as well as English... although I wouldn't be surprised if French or Latin or German were also among his abilities. Nevertheless, his abilities with Yiddish and Hebrew no doubt account for the fact that there are such a number of writers in these languages also upon the list. In spite of this his "canon" includes a large number of Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, Latin-American, etc... writers as well as British, American, Canadian, Australian, and other Anglo-writers. Beyond my initial question (and yes, please do offer me up a better list to introduce the average reader to a broad array of the greatest books of Western literature), who are all of these 90% of the English-language writers on Bloom's list that don't belong? Obviously you think that the majority of them are unworthy... Which one's and why? To make such a sweeping proclamation that 90% of the English-language literature on such a list does not deserve to be there would lead some to think that such a statement is anti-Anglo. Personally, I have disagreements with some of Bloom's preferences. I have yet to be able to really get into John Ashberry, while there are any number of other books by German, Italian, French (etc..) writers that I would surely add to the list... but again, do you have some guide that is better?

[kelby_lake]

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

this is the one where ulysses is 11- reader's poll. I'm always slightly dubious as to whether people have actually read these or whether they assume they should be on there.

I'm so glad that Mockingbird has been shoved off the first list and that Lolita is fourth. mockingbird is
so inferior to it yet it always appears above Lolita. I reckon that if these people had read the 2 then Lolita would be higher.

[JBI]

It makes no difference. If Ayn Rand is the highest rated writer in America, than it says something. Either way, if taken today, you probably would get Potter as number one or something, seeing as to how many fans there are on the internet.

It will be curious to see who wins the Booker of Bookers for the 40 year though, seeing as it is a reader-polled contest, and anyone can submit their response.

[curlyqlink]

If you were the one making the list of the top 10 books of all time, what would be on it? This is my sinister method of getting book recommendations.

I'd definitely put Of Human Bondage on my "ten best" list. To me it's the "perfect" novel. Proust would surely go on the list too. At the opposite extreme of Proust's lengthy and "experimental" work I'd put Joseph Conrad's highly condensed and conventionally-narrated Heart of Darkness. Or maybe his Lord Jim; in any case, I'd name Conrad among the ten best. To toss in something a bit controversial, I might include Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep. Because it's a whodunit, it could be condemned as mere genre fiction-- but I find Chandler's writing style superlative, and he has few rivals for creating a sense of atmosphere.

Virginia Woolf belongs on the list. Flaubert also. That makes six, and my list so far only covers the past couple of centuries...

I think Bloom's list is an excellent place to start. He's an old fossil, but he's a fair-minded old fossil.

[stlukesguild]

It makes no difference. If Ayn Rand is the highest rated writer in America, than it says something.

Yes... but L. Ron Hubbard was given two spots in the top ten, so it isn't all bad.:rolleyes: :brickwall :brow: :goof: :confused: :D

[Drkshadow03]

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

this is the one where ulysses is 11- reader's poll. I'm always slightly dubious as to whether people have actually read these or whether they assume they should be on there.

I'm so glad that Mockingbird has been shoved off the first list and that Lolita is fourth. mockingbird is
so inferior to it yet it always appears above Lolita. I reckon that if these people had read the 2 then Lolita would be higher.

I'd like to point out your also blind to how they conducted their reader's poll. All we are told is that: "The readers' poll for the best novels published in the English language since 1900 opened on July 20, 1998 and closed on October 20, 1998, with 217,520 votes cast."

But you don't know whether they only allowed one vote per a person or if they allowed two or three per a person. An already pre-selected list with a write-in box (thus influencing people to pick something already preselected). Basically, though, it's not like someone could just sit there and say, "hey, we're going to make Ulysses number 11." So I am less dubious of the results than you seem to be. Given the high numbers of votes this may in fact be a fair representation of the reading population. Then again, maybe not. Ayn Rand is less surprising than say L. Ron Hubbard (I've actually read Battlefield Earth and it was G-d awful, and this coming from someone who likes Sci-fi).

[Erichtho]

How many of the 27 major canons written about(I think I got the number right) are Anglophones? From my reading, I counted 13 non-English canons. Either way, it is a work of American criticism. How could one expect one single critic to be able to narrow down a full Western canon. There is not enough time to not just learn all the languages of the west, still spoken and dead, but to also read all of the literature within said languages, and not just be familiar with them, but to be able to write scholarship on them.

I agree with you. I don't expect anyone to narrow down a full Western canon, but obviously H. Bloom thinks he is in a position to do that, which is what I criticise.


Bloom is writing for Americans. Everything he writes in that book reflects American, and English letters, since he is a teacher, and critic, of American, and English letters. There simply is too much for him to include in that list if he branches out beyond the major languages he has familiarity with.

Exactly, but to which result does this lead? His selection of the anglophone works (and perhaps works from the other literatures he has thoroughly studied) is, as has already been mentioned, very inclusive, while literatures from other countries are cut-down to the utmost necessary. Still, those very different approaches are presented in the same manner by calling the whole a Western canon, which it simply isn't.


As for the Appendices, those can be taken as a personal list, from all his knowledge of literature, and should not be taken as law. Of course, the Italians will read more Italian books, the Russians more Russian books, and the Swedish more Swedish books. He is American, therefore it makes sense for his knowledge to be primarily of American and English literature, and then secondarily on Western literatures, especially on those that influence American and English literature.

You are attacking one man's reading list for not including every odd book in the world. Even if he has read all those books in their original, which he hasn't, he already has 3000 works, which is far more than the average reader will ever be able to conquer in one lifetime. His major canons are what he decrees as essential, and they all are essential for the American audience, as he sees it.

I'm not attacking him for not including "every odd book", I'm attacking him for only including every odd book from the anglophone literature while not doing the same with other literatures and then having the presumptuousness for calling it a Western canon.


I haven't seen a more complete list yet for an American scholar, perhaps you know of a better one? Can you possibly create such an all inclusive list, meanwhile maintaining that you have read every work in depth, most in the original? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt anyone else can, really. There perhaps are a few other critics with Bloom's expertise, but I can find none in the English speaking world with as wide a knowledge of literature.

Bloom has studied Anglophone literature in-depth, which noone can deny him, but he hasen't studied Spanish, French, German literature etc. in-depth (which is impossible to do in one life - one always has to set priorities, and each of these literatures take a whole life of studying). Fact is, his studies only enable him to create a canon for the anglophone literature, but he also dares to include a very selective sample of other literatures, which do them in no way justice.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Oh? And can you perhaps provide us with a more enlightened list?

No, I cannot, as any other single person cannot, and unlike Bloom I'm aware of this.


I admitted that any list is going to be biased and as JBI points out Bloom is a professor of English literature and so his focus is upon literature and literature that is accessible to the English-reading audience. I'm uncertain as to Bloom's own abilities in other languages outside of the fact that he is fluent in Hebrew and Yiddish as well as English... although I wouldn't be surprised if French or Latin or German were also among his abilities. Nevertheless, his abilities with Yiddish and Hebrew no doubt account for the fact that there are such a number of writers in these languages also upon the list.

It doesn't matter so much how many languages he speaks - even if he was native-like in all Western languages he still wouldn't have the time to study their literatures in-depth...


In spite of this his "canon" includes a large number of Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, Latin-American, etc... writers as well as British, American, Canadian, Australian, and other Anglo-writers. Beyond my initial question (and yes, please do offer me up a better list to introduce the average reader to a broad array of the greatest books of Western literature), who are all of these 90% of the English-language writers on Bloom's list that don't belong?

Those authors don't belong that aren't part of world literature. I admit this is a very abstract concept and noone can say for sure which authors are merely national authors and which are interesting for and read by an international audience, but don't you see that the vast majority of non-anglophone authors are the latter, while a plethora of the anglophone authors he lists are only interesting for an English-speaking reader, a student of English literature?


Obviously you think that the majority of them are unworthy... Which one's and why? To make such a sweeping proclamation that 90% of the English-language literature on such a list does not deserve to be there would lead some to think that such a statement is anti-Anglo. Personally, I have disagreements with some of Bloom's preferences. I have yet to be able to really get into John Ashberry, while there are any number of other books by German, Italian, French (etc..) writers that I would surely add to the list... but again, do you have some guide that is better?

A better guide would be a list that adopts his non-anglophone suggestions and harshly cuts the anglophone list, which would result in a shorter canon one could actually try to go through completely. An all-inclusive list doesn't make much sense to me because it would be incredibly long - as I said before, one has to set priorities, you simply can't study everything in-depth.
If you are, say, interested in Spanish literature, I would suggest to go look at a reading list for a Spanish literature student at a Spanish university, this should give you a good start, and other books will follow naturally...

[Oniw17]

I haven't read a lot of books that are really popular and most of those I have read I found rather overrated, but there are a few that lots of other people liked and I also like. The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck is a book that I read and really enjoyed, even though the ending is pretty messed up. I liked The Republic a lot also, because it shows the infalible power of reason. Some of Roger Zelazny's short stories were pretty good. I've only read two of Shakespeare's plays, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet, and I liked both, though I thought the second was a bit better.
Edit: Catch 22 is another book that I thought was really well written and that others seem to think the same about.

[stlukesguild]

I doubt Bloom or his reading list has much need of defense by me. It has been attacked by endless others with far more reading under their belts than I... and yet few or none have offered a better alternative. I agree that there is an English-Language bias to the list. The first reason for this bias would seem to be found in the very title: "The Western Canon." This title, written in English, would almost immediately suggest that such offered the essential books of Western literature accessible to the English-speaking audience. He admits to having excluded most works of Eastern literature simply due to the lack of quality translations. The same must certainly be admitted of most of the "lesser" works by non-Anglo writers of the West. One might also add to this the fact that English-language literature is certainly one of the greatest bodies of literary achievements combining the efforts of writers not only from Great Britain, but also the United States, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, etc... If one looks at the actual list one discovers that comparatively the French, Spanish, Germans, etc... are not grossly under-represented. Certainly I would admit that if such "lesser" Anglo writers as Bram Stoker, W.S. Gilbert, Coventry Patmore, Gertrude Stein, etc... can be admitted into the list of "essential" world literature then one should just as well admit Alexandre Dumas, Lautreamont, Adelbert von Chamisso, Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Stefan George, Hartmann von Aue, etc... but where does the English-reading audience then turn for suitable translations of any? The reality is that only the very finest works... or rather the works that are seen as being essential to any literature are likely to be well translated. Keats, Byron, Shelley, Shakespeare, Milton... I would guess... are all likely to be far more accessible to the reader of Italian or German or French than would be George Herbert, Thomas Carew, Richard Lovelace, Michael Drayton, etc... In the end, the fact still stands that Bloom has presented one of the most inclusive lists for the English-language reader wishing to explore the essential works of Western literature. Anyone wishing for a more in-depth exploration of the literature of a specific language outside of English would surely need to develop a mastery of that language and one would expect would know where to turn to go into greater depth.

[JBI]

I agree with you on everything you said StLukes, except for Dumas. I don't think he is deserving of canonization, and I think his not being included was deliberate, and not a mere cutting to save space as you seem to suggest.

Dumas' popularity seems somewhat accidental in the world of literature. 1600 pages for The Count of Monte Cristo, which is a 250-300 page story is a little excessive. I don't even need to wonder why most people read abridgments.

[Drkshadow03]

Alexandre Dumas, Lautreamont, Adelbert von Chamisso, Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Stefan George, Hartmann von Aue, etc... but where does the English-reading audience then turn for suitable translations of any?


Pssh, besides Dumas I haven't even heard of any of those authors. I'm impressed. Can you read in German?

[JCamilo]

Harold Bloom list is not bad at all, as biased it is.

Of course every critic has his or her biases. Bloom's cannon is certainly one of the broadest or most inclusive. I must also admire the fact that he includes poets such as Robert Lowell whom he really does not like, but admits that considering all the others of an opposing opinion that it may just be him.


Bloom is good. Biased, so I am. So, you probally are. My point was a critic to him but also to those who pick those bias as if he flaws are going to affect the whole concept of canon (not something that belongs to him anyways).
As someone pointing to Western canon , bloom himself apologise for it, since he does not consider himself worth to list the eastern canon. I would say he fails with african and south american as well, but this in no ways goes against the impreasive knowledge he have of european-northamerican literature.


e I am certainly of the opinion that a small work can be a great work of art, I doubt I would ever go so far as to suggest that a single "perfect" poem of Keats or Shelley or perhaps a Checkov tale can equal Don Quixote or War and Peace. J.L. Borges, himself a master of smaller literary genre, tackles this subject in an essay in which he points out that even a good many mediocre poets have achieved that single "perfect" memorable sonnet, while Don Quixote and surely any other larger work is often far from perfect.

I know Borges and you know his prejudice against longer works. The problem I considering the world perfection (it is not a Borges world, I am sure. Since it is for him something related to infinite) I can easily point that Borges himself puts in danger the romance and novel with his short stories and in his list of favored reading are short stories rights and not Tolstoi whom he disliked immensily.


s that in spite of the "perfection" of the one and the "flaws" of the other, the great work like Don Quixote can never be matched by the mere perfect lyric. I tend to agree. As much as I love Blake's Tyger or Shelley's Ozymandias, or any number of other lyrics, I don't think I could honestly dare to suggest that they are equal to Don Quixote, The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc...

But you are not comparing long vs. short, you are comparing Quixote and Divine Comedy (Odyssey or Paradise Lost) which are the best things ever write not because of size. Keat's Ode to a Nightingale is easily comparable to any romance with 80000 pages unless you are listing 3 epic poems and a colection of short stories centered in one individual.
Remember Borges - He often said you should read only one or another chapter of longer works, where the text is better. In fact, that was his reading habit, he claimed to be unable to finish anythign written by Dostoievisky.


gest that it is unfair to compare the collected poems of Keats or Donne with the great novel or epic poem due to the fact of inconsistency in the former.

Sorry, but I didn't suggest this. I suggest they are not a unity so people won't consider "The Complete poems of xxxx" a book, and it is not, since it is just an editorial accident. I do not think romances are as consistent (and this is a particular trait of a few writers). Just your list, Quixote is not (the second part is different from the first), The odyssey certainly not and we could add that 1001 Nights, the Bible, etc all have the same trait.In my opinion, Brothers Karamazov chapter "The Great Inquisitor" is superior to the rest of the book.


I would suggest that in this they are closer the larger works or literature... almost any of which have their flaws or moments of lapse. I also find that I would be far more likely to be impressed by a writer's abilities to carry on over the long run... to show some mastery of breadth and depth and variety, be this through a collection of shorter poems or the single epic work.

It was T.S.Eliot that suggested that one is only a great poet if they write a long poem I think. Maybe, but that would make Baudelaire, Poe and Borges unable to produce immortality. (Which does not mean producing a Divine Comedy, that is something else). And those 3 stand out even when compared to Victor Hugo, Dostoievisky and E.M.Foster to list a few good romance writers.


This would be no less true of an artist in any art form. If all Chopin had composed was one of those exquisite nocturnes there is no way I could seriously place him as an equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann... all of those marvelous "little" works together, however, certainly add up to a formidable artistic achievement.

Isn't in the end the two possiblities equally true and only a matter of style? I mean, Borges is imense despite not writing more than 10 pages (except his biography) because that was the solution he found for uniqueness?


I agree with you on everything you said StLukes, except for Dumas. I don't think he is deserving of canonization, and I think his not being included was deliberate, and not a mere cutting to save space as you seem to suggest.

p.S I would list Dumas as immortal, simple because He is already (cann't fight against the water flow). Why? A Certain rythim despite the excess and easy manipulation of well know traits. Invented the Best-seller market, basically, he knew how to manipulate the story

[stlukesguild]

I agree with you on everything you said StLukes, except for Dumas. I don't think he is deserving of canonization...

But is he less deserving than Stoker? I have mixed feelings on him. First of all there is his factory production method utilizing ghost writers... who included the surely canonical, Nerval. Then... as you mention... there is his excessive length. On the other hand... I have never believed that a work of art gains the status of "classic" or "canonical" solely upon the basis of the opinions of the critics. For some reason those who love to read have continued to be enthralled by his novels. Still 1600 pages for a mediocre novel is surely a bit much.

Pssh, besides Dumas I haven't even heard of any of those authors. I'm impressed. Can you read in German?

Lautreamont is French and the writer of Maldoror, a key Symbolist... almost Surrealist work. As for the German writers... I know of most of them only through the translations of a few poems in one anthology or another. I had 3 years of German years ago, but at present can only fudge my way through a few phrases and terms that I needed when I was employed as a research assistant for an art historian... art history having been "invented" by the Germans.:D Chamisso I am also aware of due to the use of his works by various classical composers. From what I do know I would certainly like to have access to more of Annette von Droste-Hülshoff's work.

[JCamilo]

Umberto Eco have an essay where he asks almost the samething and analyse the Count of Monte Cristo as if it was a masterwork. Anyways, I think the most reasonable thing in the world is having mixed feelings about Dumas, he is certainly a Minor Great Writer and he was not even able to hide his flaws. We can make a long list why Monte Cristo and the Muskeeter series is flawed, but the permanence of those works is certainly a proof that despite those flaws his qualities can sustain the books. He hardly create a wrong character, they are all with the right (in a very average way) traits, doing the exactly right thing. Today the best seller industry is only trying to imitate him because even crap books are not remembered by the critics.
A few works also seems to have flaws because the objective of the work, they carry inherent limitations.

As the Canon - I do not think the strongest bias of Bloom is pro-english. This kind of bias he controled very well (as there is two lists in his book, one of selected few Dante, Shakespeare, Moliere, Proust, Tolstoi, etc and a bigger list, this one is quite useful as guide since it is hard to find anything missing there), his bias are: When talking outside europe he is not as strong. That he said already about eastern literature but in the Borges and Neruda chapter plus in the moderm list (since Latim America is something very new, it is out of his scope) he shows to be also flawed. I mean, in the final list he excluded Guimarães Rosa (and this one have good translations).
Other is his anti-Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, etc school of analyse. He repeat it too much and forget how influential they are (and not as distant from his own view as he claims, I think it is anti-marxism thing, something he confess in the book), plus the Anti T.S.Eliot bias.
The other is the need to transform everything in a freudian competition, this for example, make him understimate Poe and Dostoievisky a little, but nothing too dramatic.
But if you ignore this, reading hm talking Emily Dickinson or Shakespeare is great.

[stlukesguild]

But you are not comparing long vs. short, you are comparing Quixote and Divine Comedy (Odyssey or Paradise Lost) which are the best things ever write not because of size. Keat's Ode to a Nightingale is easily comparable to any romance with 80000 pages unless you are listing 3 epic poems and a colection of short stories centered in one individual...

As much as I admire the wonderful, perfect artistic gem... and I am a great admirer of Borges, Kafka, Dickinson, Robert Herrick, Verlaine, Shelley's Ozymandias, etc... it is difficult to argue the artistic equality of the best epic work with the best literary gem. It's not merely the scale... but the complexity... the breadth of achievement... the manner in which one can be endlessly lost in one of the grand masterpieces in a way which I cannot imagine ever happening with the smaller work. Certainly I return to Blake's Tyger again and again... but it would seem absurd to suggest that it is the artistic equal of The Odyssey or War and Peace. I could not imagine the single lieder by Schubert being seen as an aesthetic achievement equal to Beethoven's 9th Symphony or one of Monet's wonderful paintings of Rouen Cathedral being put forth as aesthetically superior to the actual Rouen Cathedral. A collection of such gems, however, can surely add up to a most impressive achievement... and this would be true whether they were originally intended as a grouping (as in Schubert's Winterreise or Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du mal) or collected after the fact.

I suggest they (collected works) are not a unity so people won't consider "The Complete poems of xxxx" a book, and it is not, since it is just an editorial accident.

Of course... you are playing with the interpretation of just what counts as a "book". Surely the ideal... in our mind... is the book as a self-contained entity intended as such and published as such by the author. This largely eliminates a good deal of the "books" written before printing... or even modern publication standards. The Bible is continually spoken of as a "book" and yet it is actually a collection of writings that result from "editorial accident". The same might be said of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Spencer's Faerie Queene, neither of which was ever completed. And what does one make of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du mal or Whitman's Leaves of Grass... works which the authors continued to change and add to over the years... after initial publication? And then there is the very center of the literary canon... or at least that of the English-speaking world: William Shakespeare. Not a single play of his was published during his life time and as a result there are numerous editorial disputes based upon various texts. It would seem to me that if we can suggest that the Bible, the Canterbury Tales, Leaves of Grass and Hamlet are "books" then the "Collected Poems of Keats", "The Selected Non-Fictions of J.L. Borges", "The Complete Short Stories of Kafka", and the "Collected Essays of Montaigne" are equally valid for consideration as books. Surely the collected poems by Keats, for example, offers us far more breadth and depth and ability to offer aesthetic judgment than does the single, however fabulous, poem.

It was T.S.Eliot that suggested that one is only a great poet if they write a long poem I think. Maybe, but that would make Baudelaire, Poe and Borges unable to produce immortality.

I would never suggest that the inability to produce the single grand-scaled work is in any way a measure of one's artistic merit. The collected works of Keats, Yeats, Shelley, Baudelaire, etc... clearly dispels this notion. Had they only produced the single work of genius? If Shelley had only Ozymandias upon which to rest his reputation? Perhaps that poem might survive in anthologies... but I doubt Shelley would rank anywhere near where he ranks today. By way of comparison, Coleridge probably stands as the least of the "big 6" English Romantic poets. He has three works of unquestionable genius: Christabel, Kublai Khan, and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. These 3 poems surely stand comparison to nearly any lyrical poem by the other 5... but the fact of the matter is that they are but 3 poems of genius... compared to a great many... compared also to longer poems (The Prelude, Adonais, Don Juan). If it were not for Coleridge's connections with Wordsworth and his own achievements outside of poetry as a literary critic of some merit, one wonders whether just one of these poems would be enough to assure him of literary immortality?

I do not think the strongest bias of Bloom is pro-english. This kind of bias he controled very well (as there is two lists in his book, one of selected few Dante, Shakespeare, Moliere, Proust, Tolstoi, etc and a bigger list, this one is quite useful as guide since it is hard to find anything missing there), his bias are: When talking outside europe he is not as strong. That he said already about eastern literature but in the Borges and Neruda chapter plus in the moderm list (since Latim America is something very new, it is out of his scope) he shows to be also flawed. I mean, in the final list he excluded Guimarães Rosa (and this one have good translations).

But might not your feeling that Latin American literature has been under-rated by Bloom be no more or less factual than the assumption that French or German writers have been under-represented? Again it probably comes down to accessibility. You suggest Guimarães Rosa, but the only works I can find in English translations on Amazon are dated from the 1960s and cost between $48.00 and $250.00 US. Quite an outlay for any book. Personally, I am quite entranced by a good deal of Latin American literature and so I would add a number of other books to the list, starting with Augusto Monterroso... but I must credit Bloom with having initially led me to Machado de Assis, Octavio Paz' prose, Carpentier, and several others of real genius.

Other is his anti-Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, etc school of analyse. He repeat it too much and forget how influential they are (and not as distant from his own view as he claims, I think it is anti-marxism thing, something he confess in the book), plus the Anti T.S.Eliot bias.

That only raises his critical acumen in my eyes. The Foucault/Derrida (etc...) school of criticism, no matter how influential, has added nothing but a Franco-flavored pseudo-intellectual babel and mental Onanism to literary... and unfortunately art criticism. His response to Eliot is somewhat to be expected coming from a self-proclaimed Romantic and an agnostic Jew. Eliot's anti-Romantic criticism was dominant during the years of Bloom's schooling, and while he certainly might be credited for the "rediscovery" of such poets as Donne, Eliot far underestimated others such as Blake and Shelley. Add to this Eliot's conversion to Anglicism and the Christian theology behind a great deal of his later poems and criticism, as well as the accusations of antisemitism and one must admire Bloom's admission that he continued to argue with Eliot (and prefer Hart Crane) in spite of re-reading and memorizing almost everything Eliot wrote.

[Erichtho]

I doubt Bloom or his reading list has much need of defense by me. It has been attacked by endless others with far more reading under their belts than I... and yet few or none have offered a better alternative. I agree that there is an English-Language bias to the list. The first reason for this bias would seem to be found in the very title: "The Western Canon." This title, written in English, would almost immediately suggest that such offered the essential books of Western literature accessible to the English-speaking audience.

Perhaps you don't know, but many of his books happen to be translated, and if one sees a book called El Canon Occidental or Западный канон one doesn't assume a total anglophone bias.


He admits to having excluded most works of Eastern literature simply due to the lack of quality translations. The same must certainly be admitted of most of the "lesser" works by non-Anglo writers of the West.

I don't expect to find any Eastern literature in a Western canon, but he is neglecting a great part of European literature (and maybe even more non-European literature, as JCamilo pointed out), e.g. before the section The Chaotic Age, the 20th century, not a single author from Poland or Hungary is mentioned! Polish literature has at least 500 years of history and doesn't start with Schulz and Lem, but rather with Rej and Kochanowsky. :rolleyes:

You admit that he excluded "lesser" works by non-Anglo writers, but doesn't that imply that you admit that there have been included lesser works by anglophone authors? And what decides whether an author will only be read on a national level or whether he will be included in an international canon? I can't say for sure, but one of the main criterias is certainly the ability to translate his works - poetry is generally very difficult to translate, and some styles that include a lot of word creations, dialects, slang etc. are also pretty much intranslatable. Hölderlin is one of my favourite authors whom I constantly recommend to other readers, but when a person who doesn't speak German asks me for recommendations on German literature I never mention him - I think it's hardly more than a waste of time to read him in translation.

To conclude: that an author is only known within the borders of his country/language area says very little if not nothing about the quality of his work - and when I suggest to cut 90% of the anglophone authors from that list it is not because I deem them "unworthy" in any way (and most of them I haven't read anyway, so I can't comment on that).


One might also add to this the fact that English-language literature is certainly one of the greatest bodies of literary achievements combining the efforts of writers not only from Great Britain, but also the United States, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, etc...

There is Great Britain, and later also North America, but for how long has there been quality anglophone literature from India or South Africa?
English literature is very rich, you are right, but I don't think it has a greater body of literature than e.g. French or Spanish, both of which also happen to be spoken in many ex-colonies.


If one looks at the actual list one discovers that comparatively the French, Spanish, Germans, etc... are not grossly under-represented. Certainly I would admit that if such "lesser" Anglo writers as Bram Stoker, W.S. Gilbert, Coventry Patmore, Gertrude Stein, etc... can be admitted into the list of "essential" world literature then one should just as well admit Alexandre Dumas, Lautreamont, Adelbert von Chamisso, Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Stefan George, Hartmann von Aue, etc... but where does the English-reading audience then turn for suitable translations of any?

In an international canon, which is every possible Western Canon, only the most essential authors should be admitted. It would be the least common denominator, which excludes all of the authors you mentioned. A canon is always education through strong selection.


The reality is that only the very finest works... or rather the works that are seen as being essential to any literature are likely to be well translated.

Keats, Byron, Shelley, Shakespeare, Milton... I would guess... are all likely to be far more accessible to the reader of Italian or German or French than would be George Herbert, Thomas Carew, Richard Lovelace, Michael Drayton, etc...

I agree with you to say that it is more likely for essential works to be well translated, but there are certain authors, e.g. James Joyce, who can be as essential as they want - there still will be no proper translation that does justice to them.


In the end, the fact still stands that Bloom has presented one of the most inclusive lists for the English-language reader wishing to explore the essential works of Western literature.

A list that is only very inclusive when it comes to anglophone literature, yes.


Anyone wishing for a more in-depth exploration of the literature of a specific language outside of English would surely need to develop a mastery of that language and one would expect would know where to turn to go into greater depth.

Of course.

[JBI]

It is an English list. You seem to be ranting that one man is not capable to read every European work in their original. He is one man, and an English professor. Not only does he need familiarity with the major English works, he must teach them. Naturally English is going to be the most important language to him on a Canon, as it is the language he is most comfortable with, and it is the language in which the most volumes are available to him (if something isn't published in the U.S., how is he even supposed to no about it. The canon itself should include works that are available, and not ones that have been out of print since their time). The language bias is to be accepted.

Even if one acknowledges that it really is limited to English and works that influenced English/influenced Bloom directly, such as Dante whose influence in English is enormous. The truth of the matter is that people reading books do not have the time to search out quality translations, and therefore the canon itself needs to reflect an availability.

Either way, the point which seems to be unacknowledged, is the fact that this isn't even the book. This is merely a nice list he made of his favorites as suggestions to the reader who wishes to break away from the so called "School of Resentment", and get back to "canonical standards". It is a tip for people needing recommendations without having to worry that their choices are bad, since, if one is to believe Bloom's thesis, the reviewers and critics in the U.S. have totally separated from the canon, and are praising so called "inferior works."

The Appendices where the list is taken from are even less important, given that they aren't even the bulk of the book. It is a mere suggestion that he threw in to perhaps get better sales, or to be useful to readers. The idea that it be cut up so terribly, because of his limitation as a reader, is somewhat harsh, considering no one living could write a better one for an English audience.

The fact with that list is, it is meant to be books that are all excellent, not books that will definitely last the centuries. He hopes they last the centuries, but I am sure even Bloom knows that half his list is going to be cut from the system.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... Enjoy your trip to Italy... and know I am envying you 'til the day you return.:nod:

[JBI]

I get back the day before my birthday - how depressing. I'll talk to you when I get back, thanks for the tips on those art books by the way - they helped a lot.

[stlukesguild]

Hölderlin is one of my favourite authors whom I constantly recommend to other readers, but when a person who doesn't speak German asks me for recommendations on German literature I never mention him - I think it's hardly more than a waste of time to read him in translation.

That is unfortunate. Hölderlin has been one of the German poets best served by tranlation... at least into English. Richard Sieburth, Christopher Middleton, and Michael Hamburger, all excellent translators, have given translations of a solid portion of Hölderlin's oeuvre. Hamburger has especially devoted much of his career to the translation of the majority of Hölderlin's work. In many ways he translates better than the more lyrical poems of Goethe... or perhaps he has merely been better serviced by his translators. Having read him only in translation I have had no qualms about including him among the great Romantic poets (although may surely be more of a classicist... and in many ways looks forward to Modernism... but that's just arguing over terminology).

...that an author is only known within the borders of his country/language area says very little if not nothing about the quality of his work -

Perhaps. It all comes down to reputation, accessibility and influence within the second language. Goethe, Hölderlin, Dante, Virgil, Montaigne, Homer, etc... all have such a reputation and influence upon English-speaking writers and their audience so as to have motivated enough writers of real ability so that solid translations have been made. Others less so. I'd be very wary of suggesting that every nation or language has a body of untold masterpieces and that unless a reader is well versed in each and every tongue they cannot begin to comment upon the notion of world literature. That is no less absurd than to suggest that one cannot speak well on the literature of one's own native tongue unless one has read each and every book written therein.
Whether the English language has provided a greater or richer body of literature than French or Spanish (or Chinese or Arabic for that matter) is a discussion we have already had. The fact of the matter is that some cultures have simply made greater contributions to one form of the arts of another. This may have a great deal to do with wealth and to influx of outside influences through trade and other means... but it is reality. My own personal field of the visual arts is not limited by translation. As such I can freely compare the achievements of British, French, Italian, American, Chinese, Persian, African, etc... Every culture has something to offer... but some cultures have achieved more than others. Again... this is not an form of chauvinism on my part. I would be the first to admit that with the possible exception of film the American contributions to the visual arts are minor in comparison to those of France, China, Persia, Italy. Again the reasons the arts thrive more in one culture than another are multi-fold, and primary among these one would assume that a culture that still struggles to meet the necessities of everyday living is less likely to have the free time and the resources to expend upon art.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

That only raises his critical acumen in my eyes. The Foucault/Derrida (etc...) school of criticism, no matter how influential, has added nothing but a Franco-flavored pseudo-intellectual babel and mental Onanism to literary... and unfortunately art criticism.

Hahahahaha! This made my day! Foucault/Derrida sniping! There are so many flaws in Foucault's work (I'm more familiar with his work than Derrida's) it isn't even funny, yet all my fellow grad students fall for this crap as if they were hearing the divine word of G-d Himself.

[Kafka's Crow]

Hahahahaha! This made my day! Foucault/Derrida sniping! There are so many flaws in Foucault's work (I'm more familiar with his work than Derrida's) it isn't even funny, yet all my fellow grad students fall for this crap as if they were hearing the divine word of G-d Himself.

How very American!

(I always suspected the presence of a huge number of Bloom-worshipers on this forum. He helped me a lot in my college days- you look for simple and simplistic stuff to start with- but then I grew out of it.)

[JBI]

How very... French? Foucault leads to nothing. The point is Foucault acts as a fusion between Poli-science and literature. It is poli-science and pesudo-philosophy crossed into literature, where quite frankly, it does not belong. Foucault has his moments, but he really has no place in understanding or appreciating literature.

Derrida on the other hand is a different matter. His methodology is revolutionary in its context, but for the most part is taken as standard now. In the early 70s his stuff broke new ground, but now, lets be honest, he has been replaced with a newer form of criticism. Deconstruction has become part of everything to such a degree that it has actually been replaced by that which it started off to overthrow. The post-Derrida scholars now, instead of reading to understand the assumptions and underlying assumed elements, rather add their own to the assumed, and see if they fit. The method doesn't cut the work anymore as context, but adds its own context to the work, and then cuts at it from what doesn't match up.

Neither scholar really offers much, in terms of enjoyment in literature, or really even enjoyment in life. They both have different points, and ways to view texts. But deconstruction itself has become one of the underlying assumptions it sought to understand.

Either way, all these sorts of methods fail, for the simple fact that all books are different (some to higher degrees than others) and therefore it is better to read without a set method, rather than with one, as with one you always will derive a similar answer, which never will be worthwhile.

I guess that is why after The Anxiety of Influence Bloom shifted out of theory to what he writes now, catalogs. He realized that theoretical reading only goes so far, until it is usurped by a better theory. It is the works themselves that really matter, as the theoretical processes won't last forever.

Even then though, as the Paul de Man - Nazi incident showed, the so called theorists are always going to be subjected their own histories and politics. The theory is but a theory, since it cannot exist in practice to a perfect point. It is better to just read, and see what you discover from the text itself, than to add something to the text, and see what sticks to it.

[Kafka's Crow]

How very... French? Foucault leads to nothing. The point is Foucault acts as a fusion between Poli-science and literature. It is poli-science and pesudo-philosophy crossed into literature, where quite frankly, it does not belong. Foucault has his moments, but he really has no place in understanding or appreciating literature.

Derrida on the other hand is a different matter. His methodology is revolutionary in its context, but for the most part is taken as standard now. In the early 70s his stuff broke new ground, but now, lets be honest, he has been replaced with a newer form of criticism. Deconstruction has become part of everything to such a degree that it has actually been replaced by that which it started off to overthrow. The post-Derrida scholars now, instead of reading to understand the assumptions and underlying assumed elements, rather add their own to the assumed, and see if they fit. The method doesn't cut the work anymore as context, but adds its own context to the work, and then cuts at it from what doesn't match up.

Neither scholar really offers much, in terms of enjoyment in literature, or really even enjoyment in life. They both have different points, and ways to view texts. But deconstruction itself has become one of the underlying assumptions it sought to understand.

Either way, all these sorts of methods fail, for the simple fact that all books are different (some to higher degrees than others) and therefore it is better to read without a set method, rather than with one, as with one you always will derive a similar answer, which never will be worthwhile.

I guess that is why after The Anxiety of Influence Bloom shifted out of theory to what he writes now, catalogs. He realized that theoretical reading only goes so far, until it is usurped by a better theory. It is the works themselves that really matter, as the theoretical processes won't last forever.

Even then though, as the Paul de Man - Nazi incident showed, the so called theorists are always going to be subjected their own histories and politics. The theory is but a theory, since it cannot exist in practice to a perfect point. It is better to just read, and see what you discover from the text itself, than to add something to the text, and see what sticks to it.

Neither Foucault nor Derrida claimed to be 'literary' critics or even literary theorists. Their main concern was philosophy. In our present state of affairs we need no other thinkers more than these two. Foucault's concept of the workings of 'power' and discourse can easily blow away the control of media and so called 'interest groups' and hand us back our lost democracy, Derrida's deconstruction can uncover the workings of the mind-control machine that controls our lives and is eroding our freedoms. These people are dangerous hence the concerted effort to reduce their influence, specially in America. There is absolutely nothing new about deconstruction deconstructing itself. It was never against systems as such. It was against oppressive static systems and being a dynamic self-modifying system itself, it has every right to be in the position of a dominant discourse. As long as it is dynamic, organic and protein and is doing the excellent job of uncovering hidden motives, contradictions, and concealed interests, it is good for us.
Paul de Man affair can be compared with the recent show of despair at the Neo-Conservatives by Francis Fukuyama, the movement's leading intellectual spearhead:


[neoconservatives] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Neoconservitism was the American answer to 'liberalism' (!) that came out of the French theories of 60s and 70s. It has killed more human beings than any other ideology since the fall of Nazis and Stalinism.

As far as literature and the French theories are concerned, most of them were appropriated by literary scholars like Feminism and Marxism were used before them. Was Carl Marx a literary critic? Alan Sokal attacked some theorists for appropriating scientific concepts. Well, philosophy, specially postmodern philosophy, is open and flexible. It is not territorial like science. It lets itself being used because it is all-embracing. Sokal used a scientist's rigid and wooden logic and labeled things "nonsense" because he failed to understand them with his ossified intellect. There are some theorists who did cross the limits. I despise Lacan, (but then I am scared of him and can't understand him a lot and am too lazy to make an effort) and think that he was rightly taken to task by the scientist, but then maybe Sokal failed to understand Lacan like I did. One man's nonsense is other man's way of life.

[JBI]

This isn't about changing society. It is about enjoying the best books ever written.

I'm not American, I don't really care how strong that country is, except for its economic ties with Canada, which I acknowledge as important for my economic welfare. I personally couldn't care less about "moral values." Literature is beyond moral values, and isn't to be read for moral values, but to be read for pleasure, and self-reflection, and self-expansion.

What theorists like those mentioned above do, is uncover political currents, and cultural currents within the history of world. That has no use other than contexting with literature, except for uncovering additional meanings. The best books ever written have nothing to do with politics, as they weren't all written within our political mind frame. Roman politics isn't American politics, yet Virgil is still a pungent poet, because he wrote great verse.

I brought up the Paul de Man affair not to pull down deconstruction, but to pull down theory in general. The theoretical readings of texts have no more truth than the aesthetic readings of texts. We simply add additional theory to the reading, like glue, and hope to catch something. The Marxists and Feminists use our culture context to try and find discrepancies within previous contexts, the Marxists use the idea of the superstructure to try and grab their answers, but neither of them comment on the text itself, which is essential, negating the concept of literary criticism, and making it, as it is called now, culture criticism.

This isn't bad, but it isn't literary study. It is culture study, a different discipline that exists beside literary study. You cannot politicize something like:

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ring'd with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

The poem isn't meant to be read as politics, and anyone who tries to politicize it, or find morals in it merely just transposes additional facts, such as Tennyson's biography, and historical context, into the poem, in order to try and create a sort of meaning that they desire. The poem itself can be enjoyed simply because of its beauty, yet beauty is of no concern to a culture critic, or post-modernist, whose goal in life is to destroy any form of categorization of culture.

And, on your note on literary theorists and critics, anyone who reads is a critic, and anyone who writes about literature is a public critic. You don't need tenure to be a literary critic, people in grade school are forced to do it too.

[Erichtho]

It is an English list. You seem to be ranting that one man is not capable to read every European work in their original.

No, you don't seem have read my posts; I said: I don't expect anyone to narrow down a full Western canon, but obviously H. Bloom thinks he is in a position to do that, which is what I criticise.


He is one man, and an English professor. Not only does he need familiarity with the major English works, he must teach them. Naturally English is going to be the most important language to him on a Canon, as it is the language he is most comfortable with, and it is the language in which the most volumes are available to him (if something isn't published in the U.S., how is he even supposed to no about it. The canon itself should include works that are available, and not ones that have been out of print since their time). The language bias is to be accepted.

The very word canon means rule, code, not "some personal suggestions" or "random reading list". If he publishes a book with the name "The Western Canon" I expect him to include works because of their quality and importance, not because of their availability. Burns, Blake and Wordsworth are there, but no Mácha or Mickiewicz? This eludes me.


Even if one acknowledges that it really is limited to English and works that influenced English/influenced Bloom directly, such as Dante whose influence in English is enormous. The truth of the matter is that people reading books do not have the time to search out quality translations, and therefore the canon itself needs to reflect an availability.

I don't comprehend this paragraph. The first sentence is a fragment (or senseless if refering to the former paragraph), and the second contradictory. Dante is important, ought to be in the canon, and is translated many times, certainly also available in several translations - that makes it more difficult for the reader to choose a good translation than if there was only one or even none, doesn't it?


Either way, the point which seems to be unacknowledged, is the fact that this isn't even the book. This is merely a nice list he made of his favorites as suggestions to the reader who wishes to break away from the so called "School of Resentment", and get back to "canonical standards". It is a tip for people needing recommendations without having to worry that their choices are bad, since, if one is to believe Bloom's thesis, the reviewers and critics in the U.S. have totally separated from the canon, and are praising so called "inferior works." [...]

I know that this list is only the appendix of the book. You are saying Bloom wants the reader to get back to "canonical standards" without mentioning what the canon actually is - if that was true, it would make even less sense: You are talking about the canon here as if it was an unalterable construct and everyone already knew it somewhere in the intelligentsian corner of one's mind, but this isn't the case. There is not "the canon", it needs to be developed, changed, condemned and developed again - and isn't this what Bloom is trying to do by giving us his tips?

[Kafka's Crow]

This isn't about changing society. It is about enjoying the best books ever written.

I'm not American, I don't really care how strong that country is, except for its economic ties with Canada, which I acknowledge as important for my economic welfare. I personally couldn't care less about "moral values." Literature is beyond moral values, and isn't to be read for moral values, but to be read for pleasure, and self-reflection, and self-expansion.

What theorists like those mentioned above do, is uncover political currents, and cultural currents within the history of world. That has no use other than contexting with literature, except for uncovering additional meanings. The best books ever written have nothing to do with politics, as they weren't all written within our political mind frame. Roman politics isn't American politics, yet Virgil is still a pungent poet, because he wrote great verse.

I brought up the Paul de Man affair not to pull down deconstruction, but to pull down theory in general. The theoretical readings of texts have no more truth than the aesthetic readings of texts. We simply add additional theory to the reading, like glue, and hope to catch something. The Marxists and Feminists use our culture context to try and find discrepancies within previous contexts, the Marxists use the idea of the superstructure to try and grab their answers, but neither of them comment on the text itself, which is essential, negating the concept of literary criticism, and making it, as it is called now, culture criticism.

This isn't bad, but it isn't literary study. It is culture study, a different discipline that exists beside literary study. You cannot politicize something like:

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ring'd with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

The poem isn't meant to be read as politics, and anyone who tries to politicize it, or find morals in it merely just transposes additional facts, such as Tennyson's biography, and historical context, into the poem, in order to try and create a sort of meaning that they desire. The poem itself can be enjoyed simply because of its beauty, yet beauty is of no concern to a culture critic, or post-modernist, whose goal in life is to destroy any form of categorization of culture.

And, on your note on literary theorists and critics, anyone who reads is a critic, and anyone who writes about literature is a public critic. You don't need tenure to be a literary critic, people in grade school are forced to do it too.

Maybe you are right, maybe I am wrong, I don't put things in "nutshells", I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as usual!). I knew this would take the thread further off-topic but I don't like people slinging mud on these philosophers just because literary critics use their ideas to further their own careers. As you said, this is not about literature, it is about culture, life, politics, society or whatever. Still the point remains that the postmodern realities have porous boundaries and things do end up where they, traditionally, never belonged. "That's how it is on this ***** of an earth" as Beckett would put it. Richard Dawkins and others attack theory (and everything else) in the name of scientific purity. I think they are fundamentalists whose ears are waxed against all the different beautiful songs that our wonderful time sings. I would be very, very careful before becoming an aesthetic purist. We can't pigeon-hole things any more. Things do tend to crossover to strange places.

Still I would stop here as this thread would roll away into the wilderness further with my off-topic notions.

[JCamilo]

I understand Bloom own limitations when listing a canon (it is just part of the real - that imaginary thing - world canon), usually we need to seek different critics to find a whole concept, this is the case of Bloom.
I also think it is irrelevant if Foucault is good or not (Bloom uses Freud, almost as flawed and pseudo-scientific as Foucault) or Derrida, they introduced a important way to analyse culture and literature from their ways of approaching the relation of the cultural subjects - it is not about Bloom atacking them all the work, but attacking the criticism developed from their works all the way and this leading to a bias against a few artists, which is a bit pointless. That goes with Bakthin which leads to a more secundary place for Dostoieviksy in his list. His concept of "generation conflict" is not even freudian, but marxist or even darwinist...

[Drkshadow03]

How very American!

(I always suspected the presence of a huge number of Bloom-worshipers on this forum. He helped me a lot in my college days- you look for simple and simplistic stuff to start with- but then I grew out of it.)

Oh? Who says I worship Bloom? Besides if the English grad schools in America are any indication, Americans LOVE Foucault. I'm more like a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Foucault (now that's a very American image for you). Foucault is riddled with flaws.

1) Overly reductionist account of history: he cherrypicks very complex historical moments to prove his so-called philosophical "points."

2) Overly generalized conclusions: he stretches the definition of Power almost to the point of meaninglessness, which allows him to conflate Power-Truth/Power-Knowledge.

3) Far from allowing us to overturn "interest groups" and win back our democracy, the first parts of his philosophy that most people are familar with are nihilistic dead-ends. It allows you to discover power everywhere in all forms of knowledge and institutions, but it doesn't really give you much to deal with it.

In all fairness, he finds a way around this so to speak in his last "ethical" phase by turning to the Ancient Greeks and borrowing their techniques of the self leaving us with Parrhesia (truth-telling as a social virtue) and creating one's self as a work of art. I suppose you might be able to get rid of all the interest groups that way, except I suspect most people will use Parrhesiaas excuse to join up with an "interest group" in the self-delusion that they are fighting power (except Foucault's whole point is that you can't fight power, you can only tweak it a bit and change its formations) and not actually supporting the system.

[Jozanny]

Foucault is riddled with flaws.

1) Overly reductionist account of history: he cherrypicks very complex historical moments to prove his so-called philosophical "points."

I find Discipline & Punish to be a credible thesis. Every critical thinker picks proofs for their argument. I asked for a discussion of Foucault in Philosophy, and I guess if any members comment I won't gain much thereby, to read the bone-gnawing here.

[Drkshadow03]

I find Discipline & Punish to be a credible thesis. Every critical thinker picks proofs for their argument. I asked for a discussion of Foucault in Philosophy, and I guess if any members comment I won't gain much thereby, to read the bone-gnawing here.

I checked out your post on the philosophy section. I have to get ready for class now, but I'll try to answer it later. It may surprise you, but despite my dislike for Foucault I've read pretty much all his major works, taken lectures on him, and even presented on him in a different class, and wrote multiple academic papers on him. I feel confident in my criticisms precisely because I've studied him fairly in-depth.