I now realize that, and I'm honestly uncertain how I'd missed it, mea culpa.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Printable View
I now realize that, and I'm honestly uncertain how I'd missed it, mea culpa.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Consort Ban(班婕妤), it's where the idea of the autumn fan comes from - her invention. As biography suggests, she was abandoned by the emperor and left to brood. And hence, wrote the poem. The best part is her snide remark for her successor at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawpark
Thanks. If it was Consort Ban(班婕妤) then I would retract my comments for "artificial" - as I was guessing it is done by a later men-poet. And since she is chronologically very early, it would be asking too much for her to be ultra-minimalist in her use of words.
If Meyer can do that, why not Bloom?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I think any selection of works can be considered a "mass generalization," including a list of the most popular books based on sales.Quote:
No, the formation of a list that pretends to represent the canon is a mass generalization. And it fails.
The Canon itself is neither a mass generalization or even someone you can define.
I think your point is that Bloom has to find a way to encourage Meyer's readers to appreciate "classical" books without angering them. But I think that has never worked. Likely, Meyer's fans will look for "classical" books that resemble Meyer's works. I suppose beggar's can be choosers, but I don't see why this should discourage people like Bloom from getting angry and speaking up.Quote:
No sense. It is bloom ironic failure. He combats Meyer (and a few others) because they take away the reading of canonical books (or good books) and Meyer's book (not even her personal merit, but the merit of how market explores the public meyer gathered) give a boost of new readers of a classical book, promoting the re-edition of Wuthering heights, etc. Meanwhile, Bloom book had no effect on market, didnt provoked a boost of new editions of anyone, didnt moved readers to a new layer of reading (even because the public of Bloom is already formed by readers with some experience which will not have any trouble to guide themselves on a library) and what remains is his list, that some people may indulge (and quickly dismiss) the idea of following it as a guide. But any day that you start with the Book of Dead and jump to Gilgamesh, you are lost.
Your argument makes sense, but only if there is a chance that writers like Meyer will promote "classical" books and thus allow readers to move to that. But I don't think that's going to happen. Likely, her fans will only take a few works that resemble Meyer's, and then stop there. In general, Meyer and anyone else who will replace her will do the same. For other processes, we will probably see more "classical" books with androids and zombies inserted, coupled with funny Hollywood and video game versions.Quote:
I do not think it is a problem being a snob, per si. Does not affect me, I am a snob. We are all snobs. But ssshhh, dont advertise. The problem is that Bloom sounds like a snob and do not conect with the new readers, the exactly public he in fact wanted to change. And because the commerical nature of "The Western Canon" (book) he moved away even from his previous academic public, people already confortable with the notion of classical books, more interessed in theorical discussion and able to produce their own reading options.
Finally, I'm not sure if Bloom wants the public to change. Perhaps he is simply angry and expressing it. Didn't he mention in the Western Canon that nothing that he does will lead to changes? Recall the part where he talks about teach poetry and imagines lit departments changing to studies of Batman and hip hop.
Actually, several of them also have recommended dishes, and even recommended restaurants. Those are lists.Quote:
Yes, and see, Restaurant critics talk about the dishes, not the list of dishes. Critical work is basically good when they can analyse works that are not exactly unknow and find something new. A List becasically is a repetition of titles, no critical work. I am not against the Bloom's essays (not specifically, he has some good essays, not exceptional) but just like him, the object of listing.
You are expecting too much from Bloom. For that to happen, his book will have to be several volumes long. Given that, the reader will have to take the effort to look up a book about Pessoa and related literature.Quote:
Let's say if Lawpark decides to read Bloom's chapters is Western Canon he may hear about Fernando Pessoa and be interessed, because Lawpark may be interessed on Whitman, maybe Neruda... maybe in latin-languages, all informations that are not in the list. But if he see Pessoa name in a list, mixed with all rest there, what is to spark his interest? The collector interest to fill the list?
In any event, you still end up with lists, especially from readers who will recommend Pessoa and not another contemporary writer, etc.
But not everyone will visit the museum unless there is something interesting in it, and there are too many works of art to choose from. In which case, some guides will select those works of art that based on their marketing team will attract the most visitors.Quote:
No doubt. So, there is much to read it. The guide in the museum is just a how to walk here, not how to love art. Specially because art works themselves are better suited to express this than a guide.
No, museums would be useless without guides. In fact, the first guides of a museum are essentially those who select which works to display. Or are you imagining that works are displayed randomly or by accident?Quote:
What? Museum Guide would not be useless without the museums? That is why when they change the exposition inside the museum they just change the guide? I am very sure, Museums predates their guiding tour guides and many will still working if the guides are vanished from the face of earth. While a guiding tour to a Museum that does not exist is useful for what?
Bloom is a critic. And you can't read everything not because you "do not like everything" but because you can't read everything, or are you telling me that you've read everything?Quote:
You are mistaking: I am not against critics and I am not against the inclusion of those two works. In fact, I have editions of both, so if I made a list of my books they would be there. My point is how mislead is a list - a supposed guide - can be putting two works completelly different as if they have similarities. You know, one of the reasons we cann't read everything is simple because we do not like everything. We have the tendency to search for similarities, you have done it before "Oh, you liked Conan Doyle? Try Dorothy Sayers or Agatha Christie" and this is more true in inexperient readers (those whould benefict from a guide). And bloom list, just lump together different works (which is a bummer, you know, you expect to read an epic narrative and get some afterlife manual) without giving any information about it, to really guide you.
When someone recommends Dorothy Sayers or Agatha Christie to someone who has read Conan Doyle, then that is what a critic does, and he does exactly what you argue is supposedly misleading: he has created a list of recommended writers: Conan Doyle, Sayers, Christie. And yet there is nothing misleading or illogical about that. What's even more ironic is your own example that challenges Bloom does the same, i.e., Meyer recommends Meyer and Bronte.
Bloom cannot discuss everything on his list because that would take numerous volumes. But a reader can find out more about each author or work by consulting an encyclopedia.
And yet he has read more than the average reader, which means we have a more experienced reader giving recommendations to a less experienced again. Again, there is nothing misleading or even illogical about that.Quote:
And then, the same way we cann't read everything, bloom didnt and he cann't give any information about it. And you end with the only option: blindly follow the list, trying to read part of everything, or just dismiss it and search for yourself more information based on your experience.
Furthermore, your own example, i.e., concerning Meyer, goes against your own arguments about Bloom, unless you are arguing that Meyer has read everything or that market forces are driven by readers who have done the same.
In that case, come up with your own list, or correct what he did. Again, you appear to be playing both sides of the field. First, you question the presence of guides, stating that it is illogical or misleading to give recommendations. Then, you state that some guides are not very good, which implies that your first point is wrong, i.e., if one can find "better" guides, then these guides won't be illogical or misleading. Third, you point out that "better" guides are those who will appeal to new readers, like Meyer. And yet this goes against your fourth point, which involves guides who make lists that "reckon difference" or "demand more studies," which isn't what Meyer does.Quote:
There is no sensiblity. It was more an mnemonic exercise for him in that list. A sensible list would reckon differences, would demand more studies, etc. Bloom was in fact careless in his list. I expect, the museum guide to be much better.
See what I mean? Apparently, Bloom has to make a "sensible list" and "demand more studies." But even if he does that, and someone argues that the "poem sucks," then there is no use coming up with a "sensible list" or "demand more studies."Quote:
That is obviously the only option. But by them, someone may have stuck on Hyperion and think "Wow, this poem sucks and it is big. I saw that movie with the pretty girl, there was pretty poems there, none sucked as this one" and goodbye, Keats.
More important, the reference to "that movie with the pretty girl" should be noted. With that, one will say "goodbye" not only to Keats.
With that, the only option is to select works that will remind readers of, say, movies with pretty girls.
Why bother being careful if, as you put it, one will be proven wrong by someone who will say that many works in the list "suck"?Quote:
Anyways, I am just pointing Bloom wasnt even careful to really guide you - twhich would be point which works are better for a start... Keats is just an example, he fills with complete works everywhere, do not indicate good translations, etc.
That's obvious. That's why Bloom has a book of recommended children's literature. ;)Quote:
But it seems to me that you have already information to guide yourself to the point you can pick flaws in lists and expand your information beyond it. This is not a guide to someone who is just giving his first kicks in the ball.