Bloom vs. Derrida & de Man

[mal4mac]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200307u/int2003-07-16

Some Bloom quotes:

"Then, after fighting the New Criticism so endlessly, I suddenly found myself fighting the Deconstructionists, another group of people who were and are my personal friends. Except for one—I don't talk to Derrida anymore."

"Throughout the English-speaking world, the wave of French theory was replaced by the terrible mélange that I increasingly have come to call the School of Resentment—the so-called multiculturalists and feminists who tell us we are to value a literary work because of the ethnic background or the gender of the author."

"if you say meaning is always wandering, always in exile, always going from one apparent signifier to another, pragmatically, as William James put it, only a difference that makes a difference really is a difference. And pragmatically, there seems to me no difference between teaching an absolute dearth of meaning and an absolute plenitude."

"My friend Paul de Man ... would tell me that after a lifetime of searching, he had found the method, the "Troot," as he put it—that Belgian pronunciation of "Truth." I would say, "No, dear Paul, there is no Truth. There is only the Self."

"What theory did the great critics have? Critics like Dr. Samuel Johnson or William Hazlitt? Those who adopt a theory are simply imitating somebody else. I believe firmly that, in the end, all useful criticism is based upon experience. An experience of teaching, an experience of reading, one's experience of writing—and most of all, one's experience of living. Just as wisdom, in the end, is purely personal. There can be no method except the Self."

[DanielBenoit]

I agree with some of what he says, and I certainly appretiate his deep passion for Shakespeare. But, I think he fails to recognize the contribution New Criticism, deconstruction, multiculturalism and the like has made to literary cricism. I do find his sweeping statements on the Western Canon and other things to be quite naive, and I find his self-rightuous dogmatism on what's good literature and what's not to be quite childish and stupid.

In the end, the best part of him is his passion (which is what made Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human so enjoyable), with the worst side of him being his strictly conservative view of literaure (such as completely stopping at Hart Crane in his Best Poems in the English Language anthology).

*edit*

Also I would also like to bring up, as many did in the Nabokov vs. Joyce discussion, is that Bloom hasn't really brought anything new to the table, not since the 70s' at least, and practically everything he writes from then on is recycled from Samuel Johnson, or is simply something made for the masses and holds little importance in the academic world. I mean, who could take his Western Canon seriously? Besides, most of the titles in his list are titles that any literary minded person knows is worth reading.

[Kafka's Crow]

Very clever of you and Bloom to throw de Man in it to start with. This discussion is going to be biased and will rotate around personalities and will, eventually bog down. What are we comparing here? A critic, a philosopher and a theorist! Apples, oranges and grapes! Let's see where it takes. I am no expert on de Man but other two I know a bit or two about still they are so different and the range of their influence and activity is so incomparable that this does not look promising to start with. Very ambitious but ... Anybody else to come aboard RMS Titanic?

[JBI]

Derrida is the big daddy of everything - essentially unreadable, yet at the same time, unquestionably influential and brilliant. Whether Bloom agrees or disagrees isn't the point - when you start thinking in terms of Deconstruction, even if it is only looking at specific constructions or aspects of constructions, you still would get farther, given the ability for it to break things down.

As for de Man, his theoretical work has always been a little bit interesting - The Rhetoric of Romanticism particularly I thought, from what I have read of his, was well put together.

I think de Man right now is kind of tricky to deal with - after his wartime writing came to light, he sort of became this crazy politically incorrect besmeared leper. That really complicates the discussion somewhat, as I think the academy just tried to forget him altogether, rather than negotiate a sort of Wagnerian appeasement of liking the work but not the author.

Either way though, from what I can gather, de Man was the king of the American theory world during his life, and perhaps the most influential American personality, in terms of American deconstructionism. I think it is easy for Bloom to rip on Derrida and de Man, the incomprehensible philosopher, and the Anti-Semitic literary theorist, especially after they are dead, but either way, he hasn't really said much about their works, other than he disagrees - he hasn't questioned new criticism at all (though, from his work, I think he equates new criticism with T. S. Eliot, and not with Empson, despite them both being what are described as "new critics") there, he merely dismissed it since, either people don't know about it, or people know enough to know it has been superseded by other camps of thought. The critical vocabulary though that he would use, if he wasn't too preoccupied with catalogs, would most definitely be lifted from new critics anyway though, and he knows it - the actual dialogue, especially in poetry, really comes from there, and cannot be ignored.


That being said, I don't see him as "facing off" against anyone - in the 70s when the Madwoman in the Attic was published, he was even mentioned in the Acknowledgments as a helpful adviser and contributor, and a great influence on the text. I think most feminist critics either don't take him seriously, or just ignore him - he never mentions anyone he has disputed with by name, unless it is his "old friend..." or whomever, long dead and done with, and not about to come back and rebut.


In all honesty, I don't think a vs Derrida and de Man is really there - Bloom was a deconstructionist in the past, but ditched that band wagon I guess when it stopped being polemic, and started being just generally accepted. In the same sense, before that I think he was (though he still is to a very large extent) a Frye idolater, but that he doesn't mention because he knows everything he has said has already been said by Frye, except for the value judgments, which Frye hated making, and which made Bloom famous.


But then again, we can always just let the works speak for themselves (well, perhaps Derrida's don't speak too clearly). Why not pick up the Rhetoric of Romanticism or some other such text, and see for oneself - maybe you'll like it.

[mal4mac]

... who could take his Western Canon seriously?

Christopher Ricks, Malcolm Bradbury, James Wood, Peter Ackroyd, Allan Massie, M.H. Abrams, Richard Poirier, Anthony Hect, Richard Howard, Norman Fruman, Rovert Alter, Frank McConnell...

[DanielBenoit]

Christopher Ricks, Malcolm Bradbury, James Wood, Peter Ackroyd, Allan Massie, M.H. Abrams, Richard Poirier, Anthony Hect, Richard Howard, Norman Fruman, Rovert Alter, Frank McConnell...

Yeah but as JBI pointed out in the other thread, it's nothing but cataloging. As literary criticism, it's meaningless.

[Kafka's Crow]

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit View Post
... who could take his Western Canon seriously?


Christopher Ricks, Malcolm Bradbury, James Wood, Peter Ackroyd, Allan Massie, M.H. Abrams, Richard Poirier, Anthony Hect, Richard Howard, Norman Fruman, Rovert Alter, Frank McConnell...

When and where???

[DanielBenoit]

Not only that, but again (as has been reiterated plenty of times in the Nabokov Joyce thread), how has Bloom's post-Anxiety work been relevant to literary criticism in the past twenty years. Hell, the only reason why he's so popular is because he wrote a highly influencial book in the 70's. Now I know that he wrote an essay on Wallace Stevens and Deconstruction, which I have not read, but what of his Western Canon, Genius, cataloging period, which is still going on. How are they relevant?

[mal4mac]

When and where???

I just took the names straight of the first two pages of "the Western canon", all of them beside quotes signing his praises. The back page has:

Frank Kermode, Michael Dirda, and A.S. Byatt

[JCamilo]

I would point that they are spawns of Bakhtin, who is really original beyond anything the anxiety of influence can be (which is just a freudian reading of influence. I does not work for several authors, at least the part of anxiety.) when analysed Dostoievisky and pulled a theory that could cope how the influence and originality works together.
Anyways, If serious critics are getting the Book Western Canon seriously when studing or teaching then something is wrong. If they are just giving support to Bloom fight against his chimeras and thus supporting his main banner (the canon) then it is just normal and not that relevant.

[Kafka's Crow]

Bloom seems to be very anti-fundamentalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYd8RoL4ZjA

but as a literary critic I find him purist and fundamentalist. He advocates closures. His definition of the canon is narrow and hence lack of seriousness about his work in contemporary critical discourse. Closure, in contemporary world, is the enemy. We need more openness as truth is become very difficult to pin-point and is diversified in so many different forms, real and faked (Baudrillard's "simulacra") that openness and continual critical (re)appraisal is become of essential importance. Bloom has problem with 'difference' or "différence" but that is the only way forward as it opens different wayS forward. Belief in One is fundamentalism. "Beware of the man with only one book", beware of the man with only one (closed) canon! Deconstruction "breaks nutshells wherever it finds them." (Derrida Decostruction in a Nutshell). Bloom is Derrida's opposite. Where Derrida asks for open discourse, Bloom advocates closed conversations. Derrida accepts the possibilities of diversity and continuity of meaning, Bloom's conservative approach goes against this method. Derrida puts criticism at the centre of existence, Bloom's approach specializes this activity and limits it to a canon which is exclusive. You can not present a whole civilisation in a "nutshell". Main difference between Derrida and Bloom: Derrida is dead but more alive than Bloom who is alive but ceased to exert any influence long time ago!

[DanielBenoit]

Anyways, If serious critics are getting the Book Western Canon seriously when studing or teaching then something is wrong. If they are just giving support to Bloom fight against his chimeras and thus supporting his main banner (the canon) then it is just normal and not that relevant.

Exactly, I don't have much of a problem with Bloom anyway. It's just when people start revering him as the absolute authority or that he is one of the leading literary critics today, is when I get mad. I frankly enjoy Bloom's criticism, for I just love drowning myself in his endless praise of Shakespeare.




but as a literary critic I find him purist and fundamentalist. He advocates closures. His definition of the canon is narrow and hence lack of seriousness about his work in contemporary critical discourse. Closure, in contemporary world, is the enemy. We need more openness as truth is become very difficult to pin-point and is diversified in so many different forms, real and faked (Baudrillard's "simulacra") that openness and continual critical (re)appraisal is become of essential importance. Bloom has problem with 'difference' or "différence" but that is the only way forward as it opens different wayS forward. Belief in One is fundamentalism. "Beware of the man with only one book", beware of the man with only one (closed) canon! Deconstruction "breaks nutshells wherever it finds them." (Derrida Decostruction in a Nutshell). Bloom is Derrida's opposite. Where Derrida asks for open discourse, Bloom advocates closed conversations. Derrida accepts the possibilities of diversity and continuity of meaning, Bloom's conservative approach goes against this method. Derrida puts criticism at the centre of existence, Bloom's approach specializes this activity and limits it to a canon which is exclusive. You can not present a whole civilisation in a "nutshell". Main difference between Derrida and Bloom: Derrida is dead but more alive than Bloom who is alive but ceased to exert any influence long time ago!

Couldn't have said it better!

Call me crazy, but I enjoy reading Derrida. :eek:

[mono]

Bloom seems to be very anti-fundamentalism . . . but as a literary critic I find him purist and fundamentalist . . . He advocates closures. His definition of the canon is narrow and hence lack of seriousness about his work in contemporary critical discourse. Closure, in contemporary world, is the enemy . . . Bloom is Derrida's opposite. Where Derrida asks for open discourse, Bloom advocates closed conversations. Derrida accepts the possibilities of diversity and continuity of meaning, Bloom's conservative approach goes against this method. Derrida puts criticism at the centre of existence, Bloom's approach specializes this activity and limits it to a canon which is exclusive. You can not present a whole civilisation in a "nutshell". Main difference between Derrida and Bloom: Derrida is dead but more alive than Bloom who is alive but ceased to exert any influence long time ago!
As an aesthete, I hardly know how one should find Bloom any other way. He has based his almost entire career off of the aesthetic perspective upon literature, which, proven the human subjectivity of perception in Kant's Critique of Pure Judgment, seems difficult to argue for or against, explaining, often times, his vague defences against such ideas as deconstruction, etc. I have no plan upon insulting such a great mind as Bloom's, but his rebuttals against Derrida (whom I have grown to admire) and de Man (whom I unfortunately know little of) seem more the Sophist's argument against logic and analysis by way of, I agree with you, Kafka's Crow, purism and fundamentalism, than something worth considering beyond his compositions written decades ago.

[AuntShecky]

(Pardon my ignorance, but one of the names mentioned is new to me -- de Man.)

Our culture* really needs critics such as Harold Bloom and his ideological opposite yet intellectual equal, Edmund Wilson, (remember him?) to keep interest in what was once called the "classics" alive.

I do believe that Bloom's Western Canon arose from a real fear that inclusion of literature from alternative cultures might push out interest for more conventional writers (Shakespeare, Milton, Pope and the like.) Personally, I don't see how reading feminist or third-world works would necessarily expunge the works of "dead white men." We have to make room for all of it.

Still, if you look at some high school curricula you might be surprised at what's missing there. I think the omissions are more due to the general "dumbing down" of education rather than to deliberate and intentional service to "political correctness." This hurts young people, I believe, because it starts from the assumption that they aren't intellectually capable of comprehending strenuous thought. We should not sell them so short, methinks.

As to Derrida and his fellow deconstructionists, I think there is some value there as well, but again "desconstructionism" shouldn't be the only literary theory used in college literature classes. I know about at least one Ph.D. program where Derrida, and only Derrida, is taught.

* The famous quotation erroneously attributed to Goering:
"Whenever I hear the word 'culture,' I release the safety-catch on my pistol." According to the Little, Brown Book of quotations someone named Hanns Johst said this.

[mpeachhead]

(Our culture* really needs critics such as Harold Bloom and his ideological opposite yet intellectual equal, Edmund Wilson, (remember him?) to keep interest in what was once called the "classics" alive.

I do believe that Bloom's Western Canon arose from a real fear that inclusion of literature from alternative cultures might push out interest for more conventional writers (Shakespeare, Milton, Pope and the like.) Personally, I don't see how reading feminist or third-world works would necessarily expunge the works of "dead white men." We have to make room for all of it.

Still, if you look at some high school curricula you might be surprised at what's missing there. I think the omissions are more due to the general "dumbing down" of education rather than to deliberate and intentional service to "political correctness." This hurts young people, I believe, because it starts from the assumption that they aren't intellectually capable of comprehending strenuous thought. We should not sell them so short, methinks.

As to Derrida and his fellow deconstructionists, I think there is some value there as well, but again "desconstructionism" shouldn't be the only literary theory used in college literature classes. I know about at least one Ph.D. program where Derrida, and only Derrida, is taught.


Agreed. Deconstructionism is useful, but it isn't the all encompassing theory some believe it to be. If we determine that a text has no meaning and every meaning at once, then what in the hell are we getting at? If we contend that there is no such thing as objective truth, then again, what is the purpose of textual studies?

I've studied deconstructionism in college, and I always secretly suspected that Derrida was full of crap--that he died laughing his *** off at the notion that people believed him.

I much prefer Bloom.

[DanielBenoit]

Agreed. Deconstructionism is useful, but it isn't the all encompassing theory some believe it to be. If we determine that a text has no meaning and every meaning at once, then what in the hell are we getting at?

I much prefer Bloom.

First, deconstruction isn't supposed to be an all encompassing theory, its purpose is to show all "all encompassing theories" to be false.

Derrida does not say that a text has no meaning and meaning all at once, what he meant was that text is not static, that it is like a river which can never be stepped into twice, constantly changing. As J. Hillis Miller said, "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."

As for Bloom, who never reached that much depth and innovation, is irrelivant in the history of literary theory compared to Derrida. I don't care if you agree with Derrida or not, his influence is much greater than Blooms will ever be.

[Barbarous]

Derrida is the big daddy of everything - essentially unreadable, yet at the same time, unquestionably influential and brilliant. Whether Bloom agrees or disagrees isn't the point - when you start thinking in terms of Deconstruction, even if it is only looking at specific constructions or aspects of constructions, you still would get farther, given the ability for it to break things down.

I certainly agree with this, seeing how I want to, yet can't understand either his philosophy, or criticisms. It's exploration ground :lol:

[DanielBenoit]

I certainly agree with this, seeing how I want to, yet can't understand either his philosophy, or criticisms. It's exploration ground :lol:

One should really have a good understanding of Hurrsel's phenomenology and Wittgensteins later work, as well as the philosophies of Heidigger and Nietzsche, before undertaking the task of understanding Derrida.

But once you do, it's quite a lucid experience (for me at least), for since he is such a complex writer you feel proud of yourself for understanding at least what he is generally saying.

Try the Derrida Reader, it helped me a lot.

[JBI]

One should really have a good understanding of Hurrsel's phenomenology and Wittgensteins later work, as well as the philosophies of Heidigger and Nietzsche, before undertaking the task of understanding Derrida.

But once you do, it's quite a lucid experience (for me at least), for since he is such a complex writer you feel proud of yourself for understanding at least what he is generally saying.

Try the Derrida Reader, it helped me a lot.

They also have released easy-read introductions to deconstruction and Derrida, which supposedly make everything very, very easy to understand. Don't bother trying to just read Of Grammatology and understand it - better off just seeking one of these introduction texts first.

[JCamilo]

Many things, Derrida is thinking like Borges and Joyce. Even Bloom can not go against those two. Derrida did not discovered anything new (Eliot also said something similar to texts having many interpretations). Bloom does not even can deny it. He can not explain well why he is against Derrida and Eliot.
No serious critic today will deny the mobility of interpretation, so it is over. Derrida stands altought that is hardly the only point thar he made. He stands because Borges said so. Joyce said so when he said people would have to read Finnegans wake over and over like the bible.
Oh well, Derrida was not full of crap, Bloom learnt from him. A good theory must learn from those before you.

[DanielBenoit]

Many things, Derrida is thinking like Borges and Joyce. Even Bloom can not go against those two. Derrida did not discovered anything new (Eliot also said something similar to texts having many interpretations). Bloom does not even can deny it. He can not explain well why he is against Derrida and Eliot.
No serious critic today will deny the mobility of interpretation, so it is over. Derrida stands altought that is hardly the only point thar he made. He stands because Borges said so. Joyce said so when he said people would have to read Finnegans wake over and over like the bible.
Oh well, Derrida was not full of crap, Bloom learnt from him. A good theory must learn from those before you.

No, no, no, Eliot's main thing was his advocacy of close reading (that's a generalization), which was built on from Formalism. Derrida built on from that, but in a radical way. If anybody did close to the same thing as Derrida, it's Wittgenstein, who also argued against the traditional Platonic model of language.

I don't know exactly what you mean by that comment on Joyce. Being quite familiar with Joyce, I have never read him say that. You may be thinking of the Joyce's comments on the circular structure of the novel, which he described as the "ideal insomia" (for the reader would never be able to finish it).

*edit*

Also, concerning Eliot and Derrida. The main point of deconstruction was not just the fact that all texts can have different interpritations, but that underneath, where inheriently contradictary foundations. This being because of the mobility of semantics.

[Drkshadow03]

I am having painful flashbacks to Grad school with all this deconstruction and Derrida talk, therefore it's the perfect excuse to post one of my favorite web comics:

xkcd - Impostor (http://xkcd.com/451/)

[DanielBenoit]

lol!

What Grad school memories can do to you. . . . .

[mal4mac]

One should really have a good understanding of Hurrsel's phenomenology and Wittgensteins later work, as well as the philosophies of Heidigger ... before undertaking the task of understanding Derrida.

I'm alogos, which frees me to read Dickens instead. Hurrah!

[JCamilo]

No, no, no, Eliot's main thing was his advocacy of close reading (that's a generalization), which was built on from Formalism. Derrida built on from that, but in a radical way. If anybody did close to the same thing as Derrida, it's Wittgenstein, who also argued against the traditional Platonic model of language.

This is a quote of lectures that Eliot gave in Oxford I think. Here in Brazil published under the title Essência da Poesia. I am obviously re-translating to english:
"The readers interpretation may differ from the author, and can be equaly valid - it can be even superior.". Eliot did acknowledge the possibility of different interpretations. It may not be his approach, but even him did not went on war with the notion as Bloom goes claiming that the subjectivity will destroy the possiblity of objective analyse. (Which means his own analyse).
Bloom have a a way to attack semiotics (Which is where Witty boy will help us also) but that is plain stupidy, semiotics was quite a serious and relevant study for linguistics and ignoring this is ridiculous. Obviously Derrida and others like Barthez or Eco are more in dialogue with the comtemporary world's philosophy while Bloom is not. They are superior than Bloom because of that, he insist to ignore aspects of text that other areas of study have uncovered. He insist with Freud while Freud is not the end rather a begining, attacking Lacan. For what?
Anyone noticed Eco is quite a pop academic critic. He works in two fronts, some simple texts for the "commom reader" and his academic work, much harder to grasp. Eco also defend authors like Borges or Kafka, but unlike Bloom he does talk about popular stuff and their place in culture, wihtout branding a radical war symbol. He also do not waste his time cannonizing. While there is also some time since Eco contribution to semiotics is old, and he also clearly making profit at old age, is he a radical of shorts? Nope. Of course, he is left wing :D


I don't know exactly what you mean by that comment on Joyce. Being quite familiar with Joyce, I have never read him say that. You may be thinking of the Joyce's comments on the circular structure of the novel, which he described as the "ideal insomia" (for the reader would never be able to finish it).

I think the ideal insomia was for Ulysses. He said he intention was that FW could be read several times and without a starting point, just opening random pages like people do with the bible. Also that they should keep reading it after a correct interpretatin for decades. The point is that FW was born as a open book (Eco concept) and this is not the danger of subjectivity (if it can be anything, it is nothing) that Bloom argues to pin down descontruction. It is , as you pointed I think, pure sophism. The fact a artwork is open, either the author meant it or not, is not a form to destroy the author intentions. It is a form to analyse the impact of the work. It is one approach and valid approach. Trying to ignore this and push down the holy author word only, is pointless. Guys like Derrida understood it and worked with methods to analyse the sittuation intestead of trying to smother it down. I say guys like him, but writers have know it before and aware of this kepth trying to manipulate the possibilities of interpretations. Borges reckonized it, Joyce did, Kafka did. And before then, Bakhtih while analysing the discourse on Dostoievisky. It is not that aesthetics are not relevat, they are the most relevant, but we should also be able to analyse the forms or system that build the style of a writer before defining what is his aesthetic preference. It is not everyone who combine languages who will be a Joyce, it is just how it was build, many writers will try something similar, but few as brillant.


*edit*

Also, concerning Eliot and Derrida. The main point of deconstruction was not just the fact that all texts can have different interpritations, but that underneath, where inheriently contradictary foundations. This being because of the mobility of semantics.

Oh, I know it. The different interpretations is just a consequence of several factors. Bloom is the one who seems to reduce Derrida to a guy who will transform (like I have seen) Candide from Voltaire, an actual discuss in defence of ignorance. Obviously a mistake, that someone could argue "It is a interpretation, thus is valid." Descontruction will say (as any other form of critic), "It is valid, but wrong. Freedom is not something you toss in the table and spin like a bottle and kiss however it points to."... and they will point to several reasons (Some textual, some extra-textual) to why they can say this.
I am up to think that all approaches must vallue the aesthetic. But sometimes you study the formation of language, the plot, the use of narrative styles and in this you may seek what is more representative, you point traits and not just rank the works. Sometimes an inferior text or poet is relevant to a superior one (Just like Rousseau is relevant to all XIX century french novelists and Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert produced better books than him), ignorning this is ignoring the whole. If descontruction pointed out the conflicts of structure while the focus was on language, it is not correct for someone with Aesthetic approach to ignore this, but rather use this as well to explain how this helped to create the uniqueness of that work.

[mal4mac]

If descontruction pointed out the conflicts of structure while the focus was on language, it is not correct for someone with Aesthetic approach to ignore this, but rather use this as well to explain how this helped to create the uniqueness of that work.

Why not, a tour guide (Bloom) doesn't need to speak to the coach mechanic (Derrida) to point out the aesthetics of the scenery to the happy audience (me).

Sometimes, being a science nerd, I feel the need to get some understanding of how the coach works. Unfortunately the mechanic speaks a dialect that is incredibly difficult to understand and has big arguments with the other mechanics over how the coach actually works... Pah. Back to that friendly, understandable Mr Bloom. Back to the scenery...

[JCamilo]

Except the tour guide do speak. "The wheel is round because the mechanic is communist." all the time...

[Drkshadow03]

I think the ideal insomia was for Ulysses. He said he intention was that FW could be read several times and without a starting point, just opening random pages like people do with the bible. Also that they should keep reading it after a correct interpretatin for decades. The point is that FW was born as a open book (Eco concept) and this is not the danger of subjectivity (if it can be anything, it is nothing) that Bloom argues to pin down descontruction. It is , as you pointed I think, pure sophism. The fact a artwork is open, either the author meant it or not, is not a form to destroy the author intentions. It is a form to analyse the impact of the work. It is one approach and valid approach. Trying to ignore this and push down the holy author word only, is pointless. Guys like Derrida understood it and worked with methods to analyse the sittuation intestead of trying to smother it down. I say guys like him, but writers have know it before and aware of this kepth trying to manipulate the possibilities of interpretations. Borges reckonized it, Joyce did, Kafka did. And before then, Bakhtih while analysing the discourse on Dostoievisky. It is not that aesthetics are not relevat, they are the most relevant, but we should also be able to analyse the forms or system that build the style of a writer before defining what is his aesthetic preference. It is not everyone who combine languages who will be a Joyce, it is just how it was build, many writers will try something similar, but few as brillant.



Oh, I know it. The different interpretations is just a consequence of several factors. Bloom is the one who seems to reduce Derrida to a guy who will transform (like I have seen) Candide from Voltaire, an actual discuss in defence of ignorance. Obviously a mistake, that someone could argue "It is a interpretation, thus is valid." Descontruction will say (as any other form of critic), "It is valid, but wrong. Freedom is not something you toss in the table and spin like a bottle and kiss however it points to."... and they will point to several reasons (Some textual, some extra-textual) to why they can say this.
I am up to think that all approaches must vallue the aesthetic. But sometimes you study the formation of language, the plot, the use of narrative styles and in this you may seek what is more representative, you point traits and not just rank the works. Sometimes an inferior text or poet is relevant to a superior one (Just like Rousseau is relevant to all XIX century french novelists and Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert produced better books than him), ignorning this is ignoring the whole. If descontruction pointed out the conflicts of structure while the focus was on language, it is not correct for someone with Aesthetic approach to ignore this, but rather use this as well to explain how this helped to create the uniqueness of that work.

But you're failing to consider a couple of important points. The openness of a text is predicate upon its own self-contained closure like a solar system spinning around a star, self-referential and functioning in a cohesive conglomeration, while extending outward into the larger universe that never truly ends. Subjectivities shift because these self-referential metaphors embody inherent contradictions, reifying our notions of the textual enterprise into a kind of intrapersonal experience where the textual object exists to suffuse artificial interpersonal values and create a sense of connective meaning between disparate communities whose works embody a particular set of values. The difference between values produces textual diaspora, pushing the reader away with invisible fingers, while drawing them into the seduction of words. As cultural values exists in a self-contained bubble of expectations until artificial transcendence can produce collective unity of so-called "superiority" through the globalization practices of the dominant culture; a never-ending loop replicates this process of elusive harmonious agreement between textual communities. So as can be clearly seen, true textual reification is an impossible process for as Foucault notes epistemes are constantly shifting, thus values never remain constant, ahistorical, or acultural, but are always moving towards the contradictions of a final aporia, which itself is never final; this must be recognized a prior before the logic breakdown of a text can be performed in criticism. Aesthetic values deconstructs its own aesthetic value when particular cultural discontinuities are applied to the equation.

[mono]

I've studied deconstructionism in college, and I always secretly suspected that Derrida was full of crap--that he died laughing his *** off at the notion that people believed him.

I much prefer Bloom.

As for Bloom, who never reached that much depth and innovation, is irrelivant in the history of literary theory compared to Derrida. I don't care if you agree with Derrida or not, his influence is much greater than Blooms will ever be.
I would dismiss neither entirely, though I have a bit more of an affinity for Derrida than Bloom. The latter had too many anti-feminist and anti-Marxist undertones for my taste (some blunt, others subtle), subtracting from his believability, while Derrida had a much more universal approach to literary analysis and comprehension, slightly less biased and ad hominem.

Eliot did acknowledge the possibility of different interpretations. It may not be his approach, but even him did not went on war with the notion as Bloom goes claiming that the subjectivity will destroy the possiblity of objective analyse. (Which means his own analyse).
Objectivity - yuck! A shame Bloom cannot discern his own biases to comprehend his own subjectivity, which his ego seems to confidently label as objectivity; all critics seem the same. If only Kant still lived, such arguments from objective theorists like Harold Bloom and Ayn Rand would objectively appear weaker; objectivity belongs to the thinker whose head senses only through one's egotistical arse. :lol:

The openness of a text is predicate upon its own self-contained closure like a solar system spinning around a star, self-referential and functioning in a cohesive conglomeration, while extending outward into the larger universe that never truly ends. Subjectivities shift because these self-referential metaphors embody inherent contradictions, reifying our notions of the textual enterprise into a kind of intrapersonal experience where the textual object exists to suffuse artificial interpersonal values and create a sense of connective meaning between disparate communities whose works embody a particular set of values. The difference between values produces textual diaspora, pushing the reader away with invisible fingers, while drawing them into the seduction of words. As cultural values exists in a self-contained bubble of expectations until artificial transcendence can produce collective unity of so-called "superiority" through the globalization practices of the dominant culture; a never-ending loop replicates this process of elusive harmonious agreement between textual communities. So as can be clearly seen, true textual reification is an impossible process for as Foucault notes epistemes are constantly shifting, thus values never remain constant, ahistorical, or acultural, but are always moving towards the contradictions of a final aporia, which itself is never final; this must be recognized a prior before the logic breakdown of a text can be performed in criticism. Aesthetic values deconstructs its own aesthetic value when particular cultural meanings are applied to the equation.
Wow, great explanation! :)

[Drkshadow03]

Objectivity - yuck! A shame Bloom cannot discern his own biases to comprehend his own subjectivity, which his ego seems to confidently label as objectivity; all critics seem the same. If only Kant still lived, such arguments from objective theorists like Harold Bloom and Ayn Rand would objectively appear weaker; objectivity belongs to the thinker whose head senses only through one's egotistical arse. :lol:


You know, I always wished that Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Foucault, and Derrida were still alive at the same time so I could see them debate. I like to believe Plato and Aristotle would own Foucault and Derrida, and reveal them for the pathetic little sophists that they are. Does Harold Bloom present himself as an "objective thinker"? I never really got that impression.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm alogos, which frees me to read Dickens instead. Hurrah!

You just don't realize Derrida owns your soul! And now for your moment of zen:

Camille Paglia throwing more rhetoric darts at Foucault's scrawny haunches. (http://www.salon.com/it/col/pagl/1998/12/02pagl.html)

[JCamilo]

But you're failing to consider a couple of important points. The openness of a text is predicate upon its own self-contained closure like a solar system spinning around a star, self-referential and functioning in a cohesive conglomeration, while extending outward into the larger universe that never truly ends. Subjectivities shift because these self-referential metaphors embody inherent contradictions, reifying our notions of the textual enterprise into a kind of intrapersonal experience where the textual object exists to suffuse artificial interpersonal values and create a sense of connective meaning between disparate communities whose works embody a particular set of values. The difference between values produces textual diaspora, pushing the reader away with invisible fingers, while drawing them into the seduction of words. As cultural values exists in a self-contained bubble of expectations until artificial transcendence can produce collective unity of so-called "superiority" through the globalization practices of the dominant culture; a never-ending loop replicates this process of elusive harmonious agreement between textual communities. So as can be clearly seen, true textual reification is an impossible process for as Foucault notes epistemes are constantly shifting, thus values never remain constant, ahistorical, or acultural, but are always moving towards the contradictions of a final aporia, which itself is never final; this must be recognized a prior before the logic breakdown of a text can be performed in criticism. Aesthetic values deconstructs its own aesthetic value when particular cultural meanings are applied to the equation.


It is not like I forgot Foucault, he is just not relevant to point where Bloom is mistaken on dismissing desconstruction as just a manifestation of a political philosophy.
I will always be wary of absolutes, either the absolute of everything remains or the never (never is such always) in reggard of values. I do think there is a sense of platonic permanence, not just a platonic petrification. But that is a different discussion, Foucault is valid from trying to localize the power-influence on aesthetic perception (which is ironically Bloom position as well. The guy is often thinking like those he attacks) but I do not think every sittuation is originated by the social power conflict. But yeah, Foucault is another evidence towards the multiple interpretations of the text.

[Kafka's Crow]

You know, I always wished that Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Foucault, and Derrida were still alive at the same time so I could see them debate. I like to believe Plato and Aristotle would own Foucault and Derrida, and reveal them for the pathetic little sophists that they are. Does Harold Bloom present himself as an "objective thinker"? I never really got that impression.

You are thoroughly, thoroughly underestimating Derrida's grasp of Greek philosophy, specially Plato's philosophy. A very judgemental remark. It always ends up this way, discussing Continental Philosophy with Americans does. Why, oh why do we believe that there was nothing before Socrates and 'sophist' should be a derogatory term?

[DanielBenoit]

You know, I always wished that Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Foucault, and Derrida were still alive at the same time so I could see them debate. I like to believe Plato and Aristotle would own Foucault and Derrida, and reveal them for the pathetic little sophists that they are.

:eek2: Battle arena coming!

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sport012.gif

[JCamilo]

Videogaming.
Obviously it would be strange. Derrida would defeat Plato debating Plato own ideas?
"yes, you are wrong about yourself!"

[Gustavo L.]

I am having painful flashbacks to Grad school with all this deconstruction and Derrida talk

I’m having a similar experience, which seems a good excuse to paste the Bad Writing Contest link: http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[mortalterror]

A shame Bloom cannot discern his own biases to comprehend his own subjectivity
Of human faculties in general, you will find that each is unable to contemplate itself, and therefore to approve or disapprove itself. -The Discourses of Epictetus

[Drkshadow03]

It is not like I forgot Foucault, he is just not relevant to point where Bloom is mistaken on dismissing desconstruction as just a manifestation of a political philosophy.
I will always be wary of absolutes, either the absolute of everything remains or the never (never is such always) in reggard of values. I do think there is a sense of platonic permanence, not just a platonic petrification. But that is a different discussion, Foucault is valid from trying to localize the power-influence on aesthetic perception (which is ironically Bloom position as well. The guy is often thinking like those he attacks) but I do not think every sittuation is originated by the social power conflict. But yeah, Foucault is another evidence towards the multiple interpretations of the text.

But, my friend, Bloom works within the rigorous aesthetic schematics of the Foucauldian-Derridian nexus itself as you must have realized after pondering it a bit; his works converges with both thinkers in subtle focal-points of power-knowledge discursive nodes as aesthetic reification produces contradictions in the power-subject as I noted in my last post. Put more simply, Bloom cannot dismiss the deconstruction venture because its weighs upon him with all the anxiety of influence that any such subject-oriented narratives should and would produce, breaking down his own intellectual projects in the process, while unveiling Derrida's extravagances of language underlying the text in the production of meaning. Of course Foucault fits into this with his notions of a non-determining non-subjective self at the service of aesthetic pleasures to be constructed and reconstructed. Bloom expresses Derridian strategies in a few clandestine ways, encompassing the Saussurean linguistic turn more than you credit the man. In his theories, the essential paradigm of the aesthetic creates partially situated identities, which in fact rearticulates deconstructionist contradictions, and problematizes the "knowing" subject in relation to his or her artwork that decenters authorial identity, as well as intent, in the very process of meaning-making that branches out from Bloom's "anxiety of influence."

[DanielBenoit]

Why not, a tour guide (Bloom) doesn't need to speak to the coach mechanic (Derrida) to point out the aesthetics of the scenery to the happy audience (me).

Sometimes, being a science nerd, I feel the need to get some understanding of how the coach works. Unfortunately the mechanic speaks a dialect that is incredibly difficult to understand and has big arguments with the other mechanics over how the coach actually works... Pah. Back to that friendly, understandable Mr Bloom. Back to the scenery...

But Bloom is not a Derrida scholar nor is he one of those people you go to to understand Derrida.

If you want to understand Derrida, go to an indroductory guide. Bloom is not going to help you when it comes to Derrida.

[Barbarous]

I never thought Joyce had anything to do with Derrida. I feel Derrida made a philosophy around Joyce, not the other way around or anything. Similar mentalities, sure, of course, but Finnegans Wake, with numerous interpretations was not written as a deconstructive text, I'm not saying anyone thought so, but to me, there is a separation of Joyce and state, so to speak he he he.

Thank you to the fellow who made a brief recommendation to me, much appreciated! I'm familiar with phenomenology and a bit a Wittgenstein though I shall look more into both. I have a strong hold on Nietzsche, and Derrida's Nietzsche was an automatic allure for me.

[JCamilo]

Joyce is not a desconstrutive writer. I have not suggested the idea because as it was noted, Desconstruction is not saying the work is open to interpretations. They reckonize it and focus on structure. Bloom is the one who tries to reduce desconstruction to a simple product of subjectivity that leads to no objetive consideration.

[DanielBenoit]

Joyce is not a desconstrutive writer. I have not suggested the idea because as it was noted, Desconstruction is not saying the work is open to interpretations. They reckonize it and focus on structure. Bloom is the one who tries to reduce desconstruction to a simple product of subjectivity that leads to no objetive consideration.

The problem for Bloom, is that deconstruction threw out such binaries as objective and subjective a long time ago.

[JCamilo]

I think the problem is that Bloom is mythomaniac while Descontruction is skeptical. Using them would hurt a lot someone who wants to prove that Shakespeare is a center that we all have to deal...