Harold Bloom

[ajvenigalla]

The great literary critic Harold Bloom is releasing his new book The Daemon Knows this week on Thursday. in light of that, I decided to start a thread dedicated to Harold Bloom.

My own thoughts: whatever my disagreements with Bloom, I think he is one of the most worthwhile literary critics. I also enjoy his defense of Western literature, as well as the deep love that exudes from his celebratory criticism. Whatever his problems, I can't help but love such a person.

What are your thoughts on Bloom? Is he great? Is he not?

What is his best work? What are your thoughts on his defense of the Western Canon, his own "anxiety of influence" and "school of resentment" theses, and his other ideas?

I would personally rank Harold Bloom as one of the greatest literary intellectuals of all time, personally.

[Pierre Menard]

I've said many times that I love his passion and articulation in defending great literature. I don't agree with everything he's ever said, but he's introduced me to numerous great writers, given me new perspectives on writers I already knew and every time I read him, I'm so eager to crack open a book, because he has a way of getting the literary juices flowing, because he predominantly talks about literature as literature, not as an ideological pissing contest.

I look forward to The Daemon Knows, I love his writings on Dickinson, Emerson and Whitman already, so seeing him talk about them again as well as 9 other great American authors is right up my alley.

People bring up the fact that his pronouncements about the death of quality literary courses at universities is overblown (the classics are still being taught regularly), but the pernicious influence of the School of Resentment types has undoubtedly seeped into wider culture in my age group, and I think it's something that should be argued against (and separated from literary criticism, because ultimately, it's social criticism, not literary) because too often it reduces literature to an ideological tool used for their own benefit.

Great art should always be defended on it's own merits, and whilst I may not agree with every one of Bloom's theories (The Book of J. stuff for example), he is one of the most passionate and ardent defenders of the great art of literature.

[ajvenigalla]

^ exactly Pierre. Let's get stlukesguild and Pike Bishop while we're at it. I would love their thoughts on this thread

[Pike Bishop]

Pike's here.

I guess I'm a Harold Bloom moderate, in that I usually disagree with both those who find him archaic, arrogant, and/or useless; and with those who hold him up as a pioneer in the field. The best thing about Bloom is he's an unabashed literature fan, who is also extremely well-read, extremely intelligent, and can communicate that knowledge to others in a very readable fashion. There aren't many of those around any more, so Bloom definitely has his value. One of the negative things about Bloom is--except perhaps in The Anxiety of Influence--he refuses to analyze his own critical position and instead posits his analyses as a brilliant man whose evaluations of literary works should not be questioned. He also, perhaps out of frustration with the superior critic Paul De Man, attacked all post/structuralist, feminist, and other critical approaches he disliked without ever giving them the due analysis required of an academic of his station and caliber. This was ironic, since The Anxiety of Influence was extremely theoretical in its reliance on Freudian Psychoanalytic theory. It has also limited the theoretical and/or philosophical caliber and value of his work.

As to his books, I've only read The Anxiety of Influence, most of The Book of J, The Western Canon, Jesus and Yahweh, and Shakespeare: The Birth of the Human. So, I'm not qualified to comment on his entire ouevre. I can say that the first one is an excellent analysis of the artistic process and how one can compare texts to their "predecessors." The Western Canon had some incisive readings, but it was weighed down by archaic bluster. The Birth of the Human had some nice readings; the man knows his Shakespeare. However they weren't as complex as Greenblatt's or Ferguson's. Jesus and Yahwheh and Book of J both showed him to be a very intelligent Biblical reader. His knowledge of the Bible and how to approach it is very impressive but, again, none of his conclusions were particularly scintillating.

So, I definitely appreciate and respect Bloom and value his contributions. He just has never been one of those scholars whose keen, potent literary insights inspired or influenced me greatly.

[ajvenigalla]

^ cool. Guess I like him more than you, but thanks bro :)

[Pike Bishop]

No problem, dude. I'm sure we'll disagree on another critic someday. But like I said, I have nothing but respect for the man's mind and knowledge.

[ajvenigalla]

^ me too

Bloom earns my respect too.

[stlukesguild]

My feelings about Bloom are pretty much the same as member Pierre Menard's. I love his passion for great books and his belief that "great books" still exist. I will be the first to admit that he led me to a greater appreciation of many writers I was already familiar with, and turned me on to a good number of marvelous writers that I wasn't... and I cannot think of a greater achievement for a critic. Pessoa, Montale, Landolfi, McCarthy, Gore Vidal, Flannery O'Conner and Machado de Assis immediately come to mind as but a few of the writers that I came to through Bloom. I don't agree with everything he has written or every assessment he has made of a writer... but then I cannot think of any critic who is/was without fault.

[Pike Bishop]

but the pernicious influence of the School of Resentment types has undoubtedly seeped into wider culture in my age group, and I think it's something that should be argued against (and separated from literary criticism, because ultimately, it's social criticism, not literary) because too often it reduces literature to an ideological tool used for their own benefit.

Pierre, I missed your post, just read it, and was curious about it. What exactly do you consider to be the School of Resentment, what is its pernicious influence, and how has it seeped into the culture of your age group? And who are these critics you bemoan, what are some of their works, and how have they been used as ideological tools for their own benefit? I have definitely encountered some bad critics in my life, but I have never encountered any as awful as those you discuss.

[ajvenigalla]

Cool view, stlukesguild. Pretty much close to mine

[YesNo]

Bloom left me with the idea that Bathsheba wrote the J version of Genesis and that is how I understand it now. Couple that idea with those of Baruch Halpern's "David's Secret Demons", which studied the events in Samuel and Kings, and I am convinced that Bathsheba and Nathan played a critical role about 3000 years ago.

I tried reading other things that Bloom wrote, but I didn't get much out of it.

[Pierre Menard]

Pierre, I missed your post, just read it, and was curious about it. What exactly do you consider to be the School of Resentment, what is its pernicious influence, and how has it seeped into the culture of your age group? And who are these critics you bemoan, what are some of their works, and how have they been used as ideological tools for their own benefit? I have definitely encountered some bad critics in my life, but I have never encountered any as awful as those you discuss.


Similar to Bloom's description. Marxist analysis, Identity Politics, Gender Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, etc. Now, it's not to say these disciplines by and large can't add to interesting discourse, however I find that discourse mostly limited to philosophical or social studies. As a form of literary criticism, I often find it's practitioners (by this I mean students, bloggers, review sites that adhere to it, etc) insular and self-serving, with little to nothing to add to the appreciation of literature. The pernicious influence I talk about is using literature (and art in general) as an ideological tool designed to serve your own interests. Beyond that, it's the same thing I see everyday all over the internet, rejecting art because you disagree with it ideologically. I can't abide by that, and find it a childish way to view art. Now, ideological dismissals of art have always been around, this to me, is just it's modern form, but I still feel it something to argue against.

Now, as I was saying, I think people are right that on a syllabus and teaching level, Bloom is overblowing things to an extent, these courses are a minority and classics still get taught regularly, and most of the great critics are able to weigh up ideological differences and still express the quality of that art, but the discourse as a whole on a wider level, on an audience level is weaker because of the aforementioned 'resentment types' I feel. I come across a lot of 'This art work from the past doesn't align to my modern day ethics completely, therefore I dismiss it' types of thinking, as opposed to a more reasoned and nuanced approach to the work. And that's ultimately my issue - complex, nuanced appreciation of art that differs from your ideological outlook is a must when discussing and appreciating the history of an art form, outright dismissal is insular and childish to me, but I see it often.

I also accept there may very well be some people who have good intentions in these courses, and are simply interested on focusing on a type of literature that has a personal relevance to them, but it's not usually these folk who are the loud, blustery and overly-idelogical ones.

[Pike Bishop]

1.Similar to Bloom's description. Marxist analysis, Identity Politics, Gender Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, etc. Now, it's not to say these disciplines by and large can't add to interesting discourse, however I find that discourse mostly limited to philosophical or social studies. As a form of literary criticism, I often find it's practitioners (by this I mean students, bloggers, review sites that adhere to it, etc) insular and self-serving, with little to nothing to add to the appreciation of literature.

2. The pernicious influence I talk about is using literature (and art in general) as an ideological tool designed to serve your own interests. Beyond that, it's the same thing I see everyday all over the internet, rejecting art because you disagree with it ideologically. I can't abide by that, and find it a childish way to view art. Now, ideological dismissals of art have always been around, this to me, is just it's modern form, but I still feel it something to argue against.

3. I come across a lot of 'This art work from the past doesn't align to my modern day ethics completely, therefore I dismiss it' types of thinking, as opposed to a more reasoned and nuanced approach to the work. And that's ultimately my issue - complex, nuanced appreciation of art that differs from your ideological outlook is a must when discussing and appreciating the history of an art form, outright dismissal is insular and childish to me, but I see it often.

I also accept there may very well be some people who have good intentions in these courses, and are simply interested on focusing on a type of literature that has a personal relevance to them, but it's not usually these folk who are the loud, blustery and overly-idelogical ones.

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

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

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

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

[WICKES]

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

[Pike Bishop]

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

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

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

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

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

[ajvenigalla]

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

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

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

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

Well, I will add some of my own contributions.

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

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

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

[ajvenigalla]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/13/the-daemon-knows-harold-bloom-review-a-man-of-great-literary-faith

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

[Pike Bishop]

Well, I will add some of my own contributions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ajvenigalla]

^ thanks Pike.

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

[Pike Bishop]

^ thanks Pike.

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

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

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

[ajvenigalla]

^ thanks bro for clarifying what you meant.

[Pierre Menard]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Pike Bishop]

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

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

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

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

5.I've already said that Bloom's pronouncements about these the classics dying at the university are over-blown and so on. But there is that influence in wider culture (and this could come from teachers, lesser scholars, etc, not necessarily the people you've mentioned), and I think it's had a negative influence on certain artistic discourse.
1. I'm not focused on scholars and scholars alone; you just mistakenly neglected them in your first post. Scholars/professional critics are the exemplars of their critical schools. You cannot deride those schools by ignoring those scholars--particularly their best ones--and focusing on the bad students and teachers representing those schools; that's bad, disingenuous criticism. All critical schools, including yours and Bloom's have bad "members" who do not aptly represent their theoretical schools.

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Pierre Menard]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Pike Bishop]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bartlebooth]

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

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

[ajvenigalla]

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

[JBI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

[JBI]

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Menard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And now we're just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over it seems. The impasse is here. I'll do away with the point by point format, otherwise the thread will become a wall of text, and use this post as a sum up, otherwise we'll just go back and forth.


My first post was literally talking about the influence of the schools on a wider audience and how it's seeped into culture around my age group in a negative way. Your sheer ignorance of the influence of what I'm talking about is not something I can explain, but it is why you continually fall back on a few specific scholars. You may indeed be right in that the people I'm talking about bastardised the scholars you mention. But that's too simplistic, I think it's a mix of some bastardisation (by going too far) but also a natural progression of the schools of thought. The schools are now wider then those scholars, they've changed and evolved and I see the negative influence literally every day in art criticism - discussions of race, gender, Marxist analysis, the society it was produced in etc, superseding and reigning supreme over discussions of form in of itself and attempts at genuine aesthetic judgements or discussions (without such frameworks), aspects of close reading, artist intention, general thematic talk, etc, which ultimately leads to the negative influence I'm talking about - a focus on socio-political ideology and philosophy over an attempt at an aesthetic, artistic reading of art on it's own merits without the all-encompassing framework of these schools. Do these schools also focus on 'form', yes, but there is an undeniable difference in approach and framework. There are no doubt some good writers in broader culture out there that use the influence of these schools simply as a way to offer one more perspective to compliment these formal readings and don't necessarily use it as an overall framework, and that's fine, but they also are not the sum total of the school anymore (nor necessarily the majority either), and I daresay they're being over-shadowed by the worst adherents in broader culture. And this is where Bloom was correct, he saw the worst of what the school could do or lead to, and even if some of it was over-blown on a university course level, he got wider implications correct.

Yes, we all have an ideological outlook on the world. But Marxist, Race, Gender, etc theory by and large are socio-politically ideological in a way that is far more overt and where the negative influence probably comes from. Ideological biases can be lessened, and can be made secondary, especially in more formalist approaches, where they are not as primarily at the forefront and such readings don't inherently propose a specified ideological (and especially a socio-political) framework through which to judge the work. The assumption that what we think of as 'good' aesthetically/technically is ideologically motivated is relatively meaningless in a world and in a history of an art form where there have been a diverse amount of aesthetics/forms deemed good or worthy by a diverse amount of authors and critics, and that most of them had a influence that made it's way through various twists and turns of history on writers of numerous backgrounds and are in a state of constant change and flux and influence anyway. The ideological outlook behind that sort of 'aesthetic' reading IS different to the socio-political readings so dominant in the ideology heavy schools we're talking about (though admittedly, not all of the schools are heavy about it as others) because it's framework is broader and application different. You yourself are being wilfully naive not to see the potential negative influence the other frameworks can engender (seeing art through a socio-political ideological lens primarily, which happens too often today).

There is no such thing as 'theoretically proven' (or unproven) in regards to what we're talking about, and 'evidentiary support' in relation to that is not really possible in any sense of the term, so yes it was entirely irrelevant and I fully admit we're talking about personal preferences anyway.

As for my stamp of approval for those schools…well, that is very simplistic (and wrong), though I admit it was probably a fault of me not being clear. Talking about the actual thematics present in the text itself, i.e. race in some of Faulkner's works, and in a lot of other Southern Literature is no different to talking about themes inherent in any other work of literature (a war story, a story with religious themes, adultery themes etc, etc) and such talk of themes and what the author may be trying to attempt has literally being around since the dawn of literary criticism, and by most literary critics, including those not apart of schools. It can be an aspect of an overall act of literary criticism without being the framework with which we practice criticism as a whole, and therein lies the difference. I don't believe race should necessarily be a discussion in all Southern Literature (and that's what my poor writing in that sentence may have implied), as it totally depends on the text in question (and the quality of the text is not dependent on these readings). Eschewing societal realities (more accurately, making them secondary rather than primary) is not socio-political in the same way, because it's lack of a specified or overt framework means it has ultimately not led to the negative socio-political criticism that I'm talking about. Understanding themes that the author is talking about in the text as one aspect of critical understanding of the text is something that exists in pretty much all or most criticism. Great works of literature ultimately transcend theory (much the same way all great art forms do), and this is ultimately why the question of what lasts is important, I wasn't focusing on the minimally specified scholars you've deemed worthy, however, if any of these scholars do last, it'll be because aspects of their work (the theories as a whole will probably die out) added something over the course of time to the discussion of literature as an art, but it'll most probably rest on the quality of the individuals writings themselves, as the theories will lessen in prominence, but we're talking contemporarily here no doubt, and whilst these schools are not necessarily without their interesting points and intelligent people, it's simply wrong to ignore the worst stuff (which is so, so common), and your ignorance is undeniable of the negative broader influence of these schools on modern art theory in the wider world (especially pop culture), the schools have evolved and progressed (from an earlier place that engendered and encouraged it), and personally I believe for the worst as I can see the negative influence constantly. Bloom was correct in identifying this pernicious strain, and I can appreciate that, even if he sometimes fails his own standards.


As opposed as I was to flooding this thread with a wall of text, I've done just that. We're at the repetitive stage now, I could write your response for you to be honest ("your ignorance of these authors undermines your points", etc) and then I'd respond with the fact you've missed the point, and still don't quite understand what I'm saying and we'd disagree over what constitutes these schools and what doesn't. I've summed up the best I can. The last word is all yours my friend. If I can think of anything I deem important to add to the discussion over the next few days, I will, otherwise, I'll leave it there for now.

[Ecurb]

Bloom's battles with "the schools of resentment" were exacerbated when Naomi Wolf accused him of groping her when she was a 20-year-old student, and he was a 50-year-old, eminent professor. Of course this has little to do with his merit as a critic -- but it's a piece of academic gossip that fueled controversy between Bloom and feminists. If I remember, Bloom acolyte (and anti-feminist feminist) Camille Paglia leaped to her mentor's defense.

Here's Wolf's account of the incident and its aftermath: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

[ennison]

Yep schools of resentment there are aplenty. I'm in one myself. The link to Wolf is a juicy bit of tittle tattle. Why didn't she give him a skelp? Too wimpy! I go on the drink for a week and when I return PB has been banned. Alas

[JBI]

I feel she exaggerated her story, or perhaps overemphasized it. The truth is she invited him to her house by her account, got him drunk, and flirted with him, then he perhaps put his hand on her leg, feeling the sexual tension, she said no thanks and he left.

OK, that is non-professional conduct, assuming it actually happened, and she didn't just imagine the hand on her leg, or if she didn't just assume the hand on her leg was a "move" and not some weird kind of fatherly affection. That being said, she did wave her breasts in her professor's face to get attention. Perhaps that absolves the gilt somewhat. Or at least blurs the line between sexual harassment and sexual tension.

[mortalterror]

never mind

[Ecurb]

I feel she exaggerated her story, or perhaps overemphasized it. The truth is she invited him to her house by her account, got him drunk, and flirted with him, then he perhaps put his hand on her leg, feeling the sexual tension, she said no thanks and he left.

OK, that is non-professional conduct, assuming it actually happened, and she didn't just imagine the hand on her leg, or if she didn't just assume the hand on her leg was a "move" and not some weird kind of fatherly affection. That being said, she did wave her breasts in her professor's face to get attention. Perhaps that absolves the gilt somewhat. Or at least blurs the line between sexual harassment and sexual tension.

I think most people would agree that if Bloom's worst transgression is making a minor-league pass at Naomi Wolf, he has led an exemplary life. Nonetheless, blaming Wolf is silly, too. Here's her version of the story, which contradicts JBI's:


Finally, Bloom suggested that he come to the house I shared with one of his editorial assistants and her boyfriend. At dinnertime. I agreed.

The four of us ate a meal. He had, as promised, brought a bottle of Amontillado, which he drank continually.

Bloom invited himself to Wolf's house and he brought the wine. After dinner (when her roommates left): "The next thing I knew, his heavy, boneless hand was hot on my thigh." Perhaps Wolf's memory of her days as a Yale poet inspired her to call Bloom's hand "boneless" -- but it's well done, conjuring up the image of a flabby, aging professor while, perhaps, hinting at another male appendage that actually IS boneless.

Did Wolf overreact?


I lurched away. “This is not what I meant,” I stammered. The whole thing had suddenly taken on the quality of a bad horror film. The floor spun. By now my back was against the sink, which was as far away as I could get. He moved toward me. I turned away from him toward the sink and found myself vomiting. Bloom disappeared.

When he reemerged—from the bedroom with his coat—a moment later, I was still frozen, my back against the sink. He said: “You are a deeply troubled girl.”

Surely a hottie like Wolf must have had some experience in discouraging men who made passes at her, although vomiting is a unique and probably effective way to cool most ardor. Nonetheless, the difference in status and power between Bloom and Wolf would make the situation unsettling for an ambitious, 20-year-old girl.

In addition (although I see mortalterror retracted his post before I finished writing this one), nobody expects abstinence from college professors. When I was in grad school one of my fellow students (a former Joffrey ballet soloist with the most stunningly beautiful back I ever saw) told me about her affair with one of our professors the previous year. They had to keep it a secret (which I thought was ridiculous -- the woman was 27, the unmarried professor in his 30s). Also, Wolf herself thinks that Bloom's "pass" was a relatively minor transgression (albeit a bit creepy).

[Ecurb]

Yep schools of resentment there are aplenty. I'm in one myself. The link to Wolf is a juicy bit of tittle tattle. Why didn't she give him a skelp? Too wimpy! I go on the drink for a week and when I return PB has been banned. Alas

Pompey Bum has been banned!? Who would have thunk it? (How does one discover who has been banned on this site, by the way?)

[Pompey Bum]

Hey! :)

Believe no false rumors unless they come directly from me!

[Calidore]

Pompey Bum has been banned!? Who would have thunk it? (How does one discover who has been banned on this site, by the way?)

Not that PB, the other one.

It shows "Banned" between their name and join date.

[Ecurb]

Not that PB, the other one.

It shows "Banned" between their name and join date.

Thanks. I suggested Pompey to be deliberately obtuse.

[Calidore]

Thanks. I suggested Pompey to be deliberately obtuse.

*cough* I knew that. :leaving:

[JBI]

That's not my point. She was clearly drunk, and she clearly exaggerates the story. One: her roommate was his student, and somehow he visited his student as usual, not exactly as if he invited himself over. He also brought a present, which is common when invited to somebody's house.

It's easy to see a situation where they say we should do something socially, and they say, how about dinner, and he says, Ok! I'll bring a nice bottle that we can enjoy. It's assumed also that she probably was drinking enough of it too - let's be honest. The vomiting from a fat guy touching one's leg without alcohol seems particularly weird. Maybe she was drunk beyond belief, acted strangely then vomited and started accusing him and things, and then he felt she acted strangely.

The general problem with the account is she published it twice with quite contradictory facts which she later dismissed as her own nervousness or whatever. My general guess is she most likely got tired of being an "all talk" feminist without much sexual trauma or anything and, upon seeing her reputation disappearing and her sales dwindling looked for the closest thing she had to a sexual harassment experience. The real point is simply that she more or less led him on, as made more clear in her first published work on the incident (not so much in her essay "The Silent Treatment").

I mean seriously. The worst thing she could dig up, assuming all is true, is that a drunken professor made a sexual advance at her (though somehow I always suspected him of sexual impotence for some reason). What she failed to discuss, I guess, in her piece is, after the so called thigh grabbing - something Bloom completely denied anyway - he backed off and didn't pursue things. That is, a drunk man somehow in a sexual tense situation ended with a hand on a girl's thigh (note, not breast or down her blouse or anything), and when she cooled, he left, and presumably took a cold shower.

All being true, I think there are far worse things than that. After all, she makes clear how she dressed to impress him, and put on perfume and everything - that is, she made herself desirable so he would like her, then turned cold when he did.

Either way, she is a third rate scholar of nonsense and conspiracy theories. It is perhaps useful to suggest that she dismissed the sexual assault charges against one Wikileaks founder as politically motivated nonsense, and the girls should have just said no and gotten over it. It seems interesting to hear that opinion from someone who held a 21 year grudge over a man making a move, and then leaving when declined.

Take a look at this for instance:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a

[Ecurb]

That's not my point. She was clearly drunk, and she clearly exaggerates the story. One: her roommate was his student, and somehow he visited his student as usual, not exactly as if he invited himself over. He also brought a present, which is common when invited to somebody's house.

It's easy to see a situation where they say we should do something socially, and they say, how about dinner, and he says, Ok! I'll bring a nice bottle that we can enjoy. It's assumed also that she probably was drinking enough of it too - let's be honest. The vomiting from a fat guy touching one's leg without alcohol seems particularly weird. Maybe she was drunk beyond belief, acted strangely then vomited and started accusing him and things, and then he felt she acted strangely.



Your version is plausible, JBI, but it is untrue that Wolf was "clearly" drunk or "clearly" exaggerating. I'm unaware of another version of Wolf's story in which she contradicts herself (although I have no reason for disbelieving you). IN fact, I know next to nothing about the entire incident except that I vaguely remembered it, and googled it because of the thread about Harold Bloom. However, the New York magazine version directly contradicts JBI's version of the incident, in the following ways:

1) "Bloom suggested that he come to the house I shared with one of his editorial assistants and her boyfriend. At dinnertime." This was AFTER Wolf had unsuccessfully tried to get meetings with him, because she was supposedly doing an accredited independent study course with him. There is nothing in the article (that I saw, I stopped reading after a couple of pages) that suggests he was "visiting his student as usual".

2) Wolf was 20, and probably couldn't legally buy alcohol, although many 20-year-old college seniors are fairly experienced drinkers. It's certainly possible that a couple of glasses of sherry went to her head, and that would explain the vomiting, but she was not "clearly drunk", based on the story I just read. So JBI's "maybe" is possible, but not probable. MY guess: a 20-year-old senior who had been trying to corner her famous professor into reading her poems all semester would be a little careful not to over-indulge.

3) Do you have a link to the "contradictory" published version? If so I'd like to see it (although we may have spent too much time already on a 30-year-old, minor "sexual encroachment" incident).

4) I agree with JBI that there are "far worse things" than a hand on the thigh, although Wolf's contention that the meeting was professional (her professor was coming to dinner to look at her poems, as was his professional duty) makes that inappropriate. IN addition, if Wolf is telling the truth, we can probably assume that this wasn't an isolated incident, and that Bloom made passes at other students, some of which were probably successful.



Either way, she is a third rate scholar of nonsense and conspiracy theories. It is perhaps useful to suggest that she dismissed the sexual assault charges against one Wikileaks founder as politically motivated nonsense, and the girls should have just said no and gotten over it. It seems interesting to hear that opinion from someone who held a 21 year grudge over a man making a move, and then leaving when declined.

Take a look at this for instance:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/...lyn_friedman_a

I wouldn't call Wolf a "scholar". She is a cultural critic who has written best-selling books. Certainly she had a motive for exaggerating her claims about Bloom: the story supports the notion of Wolf's feminist-glamor-girl desirability as well as her victim hood. I also agree that it seems strange to hold a grudge for 20 years (although she claims she doesn't really hold a grudge, and writers are tempted to write stories that will interest readers). Nonetheless, her position about Julian Assange seems to make her MORE believable, not less. I read the interview you linked, and Wolf seems to be saying that women are responsible for saying, "No" clearly, and that the Swedish government's response to dubious rape claims is wholly out of character with Sweden's usual treatment of these cases. I don't know whether this is true -- but it seems irrelevant to her credibility about Bloom, whom she is not accusing of any crime. As is whether she is a first-rate, second-rate, or third-rate scholar.

[ennison]

Wish I had a pound for every time a female drunk or sober had grabbed me by the thigh!

[Poetaster]

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

What do you mean that literary theory has been pretty much extinguished? To be honest, I hope you are right - I'm just curious what you mean by that.

[Ecurb]

What do so many Litnet members have against literary theory? I admit to knowing next to nothing about it. I read Claude Levi-Strauss when I studied anthropology, and I've read a fair amount of literary criticism, but not much literary theory. However, I was looking at the free Yale University English Lit. courses today, and they have one called "Introduction to Literary Theory". I was thinking of reading it. Here's a link:

http://oyc.yale.edu/english

By the way, I read the course on Modern Poetry a few years back, and I thought it was excellent. I think all the courses are introductory courses, so they may be old hat to those who were Literature majors or grad students, but the rest of us can probably learn something from them. I know I did when I read the Modern Poetry course (you can read transcripts of the lectures along with the assignments, or you can look at and listen to the video. I chose the former.)

[Poetaster]

What do so many Litnet members have against literary theory? I admit to knowing next to nothing about it. I read Claude Levi-Strauss when I studied anthropology, and I've read a fair amount of literary criticism, but not much literary theory. However, I was looking at the free Yale University English Lit. courses today, and they have one called "Introduction to Literary Theory". I was thinking of reading it. Here's a link:

http://oyc.yale.edu/english

By the way, I read the course on Modern Poetry a few years back, and I thought it was excellent. I think all the courses are introductory courses, so they may be old hat to those who were Literature majors or grad students, but the rest of us can probably learn something from them. I know I did when I read the Modern Poetry course (you can read transcripts of the lectures along with the assignments, or you can look at and listen to the video. I chose the former.)

Speaking only for myself, I find Theory a bit ... postering, and putting on airs.

Yale does some amazing online courses, their courses on Dante and Milton, and Modern Poetry, especially the YouTube lectures I have found utterly invaluable.

[Ecurb]

I just read the first lecture in Paul Fry's "Introduction to theory in literature" course. I found it fascinating (being a literary theory neophyte). Fry speaks directly about the hostility to literary theory that I sometimes see at Litnet:



During the same period when I was first teaching this course, a veritable six-foot shelf of diatribes against literary theory was being written in the public sphere. You can take or leave literary theory, fine, but the idea that there would be such an incredible outcry against it was one of the most fascinating results of it. That is to say for many, many, many people literary theory had something to do with the end of civilization as we know it. That's one of the things that seems rather strange to us today from an historical perspective: that the undermining of foundational knowledge which seemed to be part and parcel of so much that went on in literary theory was seen as the central crucial threat to rationality emanating from the academy and was attacked in those terms in, as I say, at least six feet of lively polemics. All of that is the legacy of literary theory, and as I say, it arises in part from the element of skepticism that I thought it best to emphasize today.

Many Litnet posters seem hostile to literary theory in much the same way: it seems a threat to the canon of which they are so enamored (witness the endless lists of "greatest" books). Perhaps others see a familiarity with theory as a threat to their own status as well-educated and discriminating readers. I'm not sure.

I'm going to go ahead with the course -- and perhaps start a new thread based on it (although the first text -- "Tony the Tow Truck" -- is unavailable online, and it may be a hassle reading the homework).

Another intriguing bit in the first lecture is:



I think the sort of skepticism I mean arises from what one might call and what often is called modernity--not to be confused with Modernism, an early twentieth-century phenomenon, but the history of modern thought as it usually derives from the generation of Descartes, Shakespeare, and Cervantes. Notice something about all of those figures: Shakespeare is preoccupied with figures who may or may not be crazy. Cervantes is preoccupied with a figure who is crazy--we're pretty sure of that, but he certainly isn't. He takes it for granted that he is the most rational and systematic of all thinkers and raises questions about--since we all take ourselves to be rational too--raises questions about just how we know ourselves not to be paranoid delusives like Don Quixote. So that can be unsettling when we think of this as happening at a certain contemporaneous moment in the history of thought.

Now Descartes, you remember, in his Meditations begins by asking a series of questions about how we can know anything, and one of the skeptical questions he asks is, "Well, might I not be crazy?"

It appears that Literary Theory is, in part, interested in the relationship between language and consciousness and language and thought. I guess I'll find out as I continue with the course. If other Litnet members are interested, I'll start a thread about the course. Here's the link to the text version of the first lecture:

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/451/engl-300