Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human"

[mayneverhave]

Has anyone here read, or is familiar with, Harold Bloom's relatively thick book, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human?

Bloom examines every Shakespeare play - some more in depth than others (for obvious reasons), and his findings are pretty illuminating, while always interesting. Bloom holds Hamlet and Falstaff as the two greatest creations of Shakespeare's, with Hamlet representing Shakespeare's infinite intellect and Falstaff the peak of Shakespeare's wit.

What is most interesting to me about Bloom is his total adherence to an aesthetic approach to the plays, in contradistinction to the near constant referrals to the various "feminist", "Marxist", "queer-studies" outlooks that one is bombarded with on the contemporary university level of study that I am currently in. Not only does Bloom completely disregard bringing outlooks to Shakespeare (instead of the opposite, Shakespeare bringing ideas to us), his approach is simply, so to speak, joyful. His love of literature and to Shakespeare's incredible creative power reminds me of why I decided to focus my intellectual life on writing.

Unfortunately, Bloom does have a tendency to go overboard with his bardolotry, especially when he makes the claim that not only is Shakespeare the greatest creative intellect that has ever lived, he is also the greatest "intellect" as well - this of course draws comparison to Einstein and the like. Bloom claims that not only did Shakespeare create comprehensive consciousnesses in his works but he created mankind in general. With Shakespeare we find in man the idea of over-hearing oneself, opening up a whole new level of consciousness.

Although he does take it to an extreme, Bloom is undoubtedly good for literature. We need an elitist high-brow to praise the things we love and destroy popular genre fiction so that we don't have to focus all of our attention doing so.

Thoughts?

[JBI]

Not his best work - Frye's insights on Shakespeare are far more interesting, though less extensive (and Frye is a 1000x wittier writer than Bloom). In terms of Bloom, his most powerful work still remains The Anxiety of Influence, followed closely by the Visionary Company. The next best set are the ones on specific poets, I believe Shelley, Yeats, Blake, and finally Stevens. His other books are interesting, of course, but no where near as good, and lately he seems to be sliding from academic standards, and drifting to appeal to wider audiences, which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but I'm into scholarly writing, and not catalogs.

Invention of the Human is an interesting book, to say the least, and has many great points, but isn't the best volume of Shakespeare criticism available; Hazlitt's work on Shakespeare's characters for one is a much stronger set of criticism, of which Bloom acknowledges. The book is good for what it is, but not very good for actual criticism.

I think the problem with Bloom is his inability to come to terms with Derrida, and accept his post-structuralism, which is something he does half the time, while other times fights directly against it. Deconstruction, though he uses it extensively, seems impossible for him to accept in any form beyond the aesthetic. For that matter, I don't think he accepts thematic criticism, which was kicked off by Frye in the early 70s either, which also seems to cut at his work.

Overall, a pretty good book, though not as great as some of his others.

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately, Bloom does have a tendency to go overboard with his bardolotry, especially when he makes the claim that not only is Shakespeare the greatest creative intellect that has ever lived, he is also the greatest "intellect" as well - this of course draws comparison to Einstein and the like.

While any declarations made stating that this or that person is the "greatest" must surely be taken with a large grain of sand, I don't necessarily question the intention. Artists in any genre have long been spoken of as "talented" and "inspired" and while these terms may seem complimentary on one level, they are also somewhat dismissive or prejudiced as they seemingly suggest that artistic or creative "genius" is not the product of the intellect, but a "gift". Why should we doubt that Shakespeare... or Mozart... or Bach... or Michelangelo... or Da Vinci... or Brunelleschi... were no less intellectual geniuses than Einstein, Darwin, Newton, etc...?

[JBI]

Yes, but the problem arises when you dismiss everything else as inferior to Shakespeare. Who is not to say that Dante was a greater intellect than Shakespeare? or even Li Po, or Vyasa? We cannot know.

I personally, from what I've seen of literature, agree that Shakespeare is the supreme - he surely is the supreme of English literature as I know it, but I have never read any works outside of English, Hebrew, and a little bit of Italian in the original. How could I possibly know?

[Kafka's Crow]

Bloom's steady decline started with that behemoth of a book. Can't believe I spent in excess of £20 on a hard-bound copy which has been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for 9 years. I never felt the urge to go back to it. I think I read somewhere that he received a huge grant to write this book and employed twelve assistants to help him in his research.

[mortalterror]

Yes, but the problem arises when you dismiss everything else as inferior to Shakespeare. Who is not to say that Dante was a greater intellect than Shakespeare? or even Li Po, or Vyasa? We cannot know.

I personally, from what I've seen of literature, agree that Shakespeare is the supreme - he surely is the supreme of English literature as I know it, but I have never read any works outside of English, Hebrew, and a little bit of Italian in the original. How could I possibly know?

I agree with JBI. Shakespeare is not overrated but some of his competition is underrated. Dante wrote a piece of literature that is easily better than any one work of the Shakes. Aeschylus seems to be about on a par with him talent wise. The only real reason to prefer Will is he left more of him to love.

What I think is that the mind is a muscle, and Shakespeare, Dante, or Aeschylus have exercised that muscle to it's optimum condition. They are our Olympians, a type of athlete which crops up every five hundred years or so in the arts. As east interacts more and more with west I'm expecting to see half a dozen more writers on this level turning up and becoming accessible to western readers. I'm willing to bet that while the extent to which their brains were special is rare, the real rarity lies in the number of socio-economic conditions which had to be met for them to reach their potential. There are probably dozens of possible Shakespeare's walking around at any time who never even think about picking up a pen. There are probably hundreds of nascent Joe DiMaggios who will never play for the New York Yankees.

I don't believe so much in "god given talent" or the "individual genius." That is not to say that I think anybody can be Shakespeare. I've just seen enough people hit that mark or come close that I'm skeptical about how scarce such men can really be. I'd also not like to poo poo the contributions of Isaac Newton or Plato while commending my own heroes if that were at all possible.

[mayneverhave]

What of Bloom's "Modern Critical Interpretations" series, or the one on major literary characters - I forget the exact name.

I've read a number of them and surely there is some literary value in some of that.

[Virgil]

I have "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human" and it's not bad. But I don't think it's great or definitive. Bloom is just too damn Freudian or psychological in general for my tastes. It's a good work of criticism, but it's limited.

[Christophe]

Bloom is something of a guide to me. I really love the Western Canon. Shakespeare is a great leap of faith but I find that people need to make great assertions because it forces them to try to back them up. Bloom certainly does make his case and he is possibly one of the most widely read people to have ever lived.(that's my great assertion and for reference, see the appendices in the Western Canon)

[Kafka's Crow]

Bloom is for the graduate students, a students' critic or an academic critic. As JBI mentioned earlier, people like Northrope Fry and, in my humble opinion, Elanor Prosser has better interpretations of Shakespeare's works . Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations is an excellent series for students.

[Atsab]

Bloom is always firm on his position, which is usually provocative and sometimes outrageous, to the point where whether or not you agree with him his theories are really valuable to have been put out there. I especially find interest in his ideas about "canons", as outlined in The Western Canon, which influenced another great thinker of this age, Jonathan Rosenbaum, in his position on film canons (as described in the introduction to his collection of essays/reviews, Essential Cinema- check it out if you're into movies).

I've read a few Shakespeare books and my favorite by far is The Shakespeare Wars by another Rosenbaum, namely Ron (relation? probably not). Whatever it purports to be, what it actually is is a compendium of literate anecdotes describing intriguing phenomenon around the world and throughout history that have to do with Shakespeare, from descriptions of ground-breaking productions (Peter Brook's 1970 Midsummer Night's Dream, a modern day super-sexed Romeo and Juliet, etc), to lengthy histories of editions and the controversies of scholarly opinion, becoming mainly the history of the author's obsession with Shakespeare and his grip on the world around us all. I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in Shakespeare, literary history, or the relationship between culture and society.

[Bitterfly]

I enjoyed Invention of the Human, and I consult it first whenever I have to study a work by Shakespeare, but it's light reading compared to other scholarly works on Shakespeare. I think it's because he studies the whole corpus in one single book, with one thesis in mind (which is interesting), so obviously his readings can't be as in-depth as those you find in pieces that focus on one play or one thematic.

I wonder if it doesn't come off as a bit light for me because his method of analysis is so different from the deconstructionists' - I'm used to those. I liked all the books by Bloom that I've read, but they gave me the same impression of slight superficiality. Then again, I acknowledge he's a master of "large" studies (The Western Canon, The Anxiety of Influence).

[RogerL]

I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I know what I have experienced. Bloom has deepened my love and appreciation for any work I have studied and consulted him as an opinion. I have been blown away over and over again at his erudition and insight. When I was still teaching, I bought a set of 25 copies of "Invention of the Human" at my own expense so that my AP high schoolers would be able to read what he had to say about each of the plays they had studied and were studying in that course.

His insights on "Pardise Lost" and the Theban plays are no less illuminating. I don't believe that anyone should be taken as a "last word" on any subject, but I think that Bloom is a great guy to bring into your own mental discussion of works.

I very much agree that the Frye book is excellent, as are two other favorites of mine on the bard: Mark Van Doren's book and the published lectures of Auden on Will.

Bloom is controversial. That's good. I try not to idolize too many people, but I find my ears perking up whenever his name is mentioned and weighing any opinion of his very seriously. I, for one, am enormously grateful for what he has taught me through his writings. His companion pieces to literature are one helluva notch above the "Cliff" and "Spark" notes that students tend to misuse or use in place of reading the work on the syllabus.

I like the guy.

[RogerL]

Western Canon -- controversial, but what an awesome, ballsy book!

I like him. I really, really like him. Lots.