Printable View
I'm talking about the age called Hundred Schools of Thought , when Confucius and Laozi lived. They were almoust contemporaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Read about that period. It happened almoust at the same time of the Classical Greek philosophy. The Chinese one was a little earlier.
As you have said it, 100 schools of thought - the Confucian classics or even the definitive Laozi would not be written until later, Confucius under the Han beginning with Han Wu Di - Confucianism, as a discipline, seems kind of strange - Han Confucianism seems to be a mix between Confucius, Laozi, and Han Feizi, as well as other sources, Song and Ming Confucianism, something completely different - the actual school of Confucianism though doesn't really emerge until either the end of the period, following Mencius, or The beginning of the Han, following the re-legalization of Confucian texts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
As for Laozi, his birth is given around the time of Confucius, that is true, but one needs to wonder if he ever existed. Si Ma Qian, the Grand Historian who kicks off Chinese historical writing, in terms of form, gives a biography that cannot possibly be believed. Scholars doubt even that the book was composed by one single author - where does that leave things?
Confucius himself only wrote one of the classics - the rest he compiled - the Odes are not his, and the Yi-Jing was merely commented on.
Please, I don't need a falsified rather limited primer on Chinese thought, especially one written in Wade-Giles of all things.
Keep in mind, the burning of the books occured in 213 BCE, and with it, the live burial of the top Confucian scholars. The texts took over 100 years to reassemble.
That I said above was a metonymy I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
What I really intent to mean is: "when Confucius and Laozi lived".
Understood?
Now,
I know Laozi maybe never existed (but I personaly belive he existed, don't ask why)
I know the I-Ching was not written by Confucius. I-Ching is older than Confucius, he just adopted the book.
I know all that things you are tell me. But what is the point here? Are you trying to prove that you are very smart? Trying to prove that you can argue with anyone? Why that?
I know you are intelligent. I don't deny that. Sometimes, it seems you don't want to undestand me purposely, just for bring your arguments and make a big trouble about everything (just like JCamilo ever did here).
If you want to contribute seriously, ok, I will listen to. Make your top ten, argue about that... But if you just want to discuss who is right and who is wrong... I'm out. Don't even write to me, cause I won't read.
If he'd had influence then the world would be in a much better state, instead its run by Communist crackpots and feral bankers. Marks & Smith it has to be for economics/politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Many of the literati admire Bloom - Ricks, Kermode, Byatt... to name just a few. It seems to have become trendy to attack Bloom in some academic circles -- jealous of his popularity?
Newton laid the foundations for the calculus which certainly works and continues to work! It has been formalised and extended certainly, but it worked for calculating the orbits of the planets and many other things both in his hands and the hands of all other physicists who needed to deal with rates of change after him -- now that's influence! The poetry of Alexander Pope & Blake were influenced by him. Kant considered his philosophical impact. He is of central importance and over-shadows Galileo. He admitted to standing on the shoulders of giants (he invented that metaphor!) but he was a bigger giant...
Not many people in real practical circles admire Bloom - he doesn't get footnoted keep in mind - he isn't writing for literati, he is writing for the public. Personally I just think his ideas are meh, there is far more interesting theory out there, and far better textual criticism.
As for it becoming an academic trend to attack Bloom, it really hasn't. It has more become just a process of never mentioning him, as he isn't particularly relevant to literary criticism.
Frye still reads well, and is discussed widely - especially in certain period discussions. I. A. Richards believe it or not pops his head up every now and then - especially when looking for terminology to discuss things - vehicle and tenor are still the phrases one would use, for instance, when discussing metaphor.
Somebody the A. C. Hamilton that edited Spenser's Faerie Queene would seem to be more relevant than the mass-publishing Bloom.
Hell, even a rather limited theoretical mind such as Linda Hutcheon, whose works are really dealing with primarily Canadian Literature seems more relevant, as her work is quintessential when dealing with Canadian fiction.
Take Bloom though, what exactly is his real contribution to a specific field? Certainly not Shakespeare, as his book is mediocre at best, and there has been such fantastic scholarship written on Shakespeare and Renaissance theatre - notably for instance, E. K. Chambers' Four Volume history on Renaissance theatre written in the first half of the 20th century, yet still enduring.
I suspect the so called "literati" acceptance of Bloom is more directed to the fact that their sales would probably benefit from him. As for Byatt, I tried to read Possession but found it beyond tedious.
Really, influence is probably the worst way to grade literature. the Yi-Jing is a good example - it's actual "merit" as literature is questionable, as I have stated, it is merely a very complex fortune teller.
In that sense, is it really literature? Surprisingly, I have seen Newton and whomever mentioned, but haven't caught a glimpse of Erasmus mentioned on these boards - hell, the man pretty much kicked off the reformation, pretty much all the protestant developments at any rate, so why don't we hear talk of him?
I am sure, for instance, as well, there were numerous indigenous American texts, particularly of the Mayan variety, that could pose in place of Newton - Newton just had the benefit of arriving with guns.
We probably shouldn't graph influence anyway - for instance, one can just root everything back to Chinese imports, and that would be that - paper to Chinese invention, making all texts, and their distribution, necessarily traceable to some Chinese super-technique, passed down probably in textual form, given the nature of Chinese thought. But what does that mean?
I am skeptical of this whole 10 more influential books theory. What is influence? Everything is ridiculously intertextual anyway - are we to call Shakespeare the big innovator, or Marlowe? Or Spenser, or Sidney, who got it from Gascoigne, who stole it from Chaucer and the continent, who got it from China, and medieval works, who got it from classical and Middle Eastern works, who got it from Persian works, who got it from Egyptian works, who got it from Mesopotamian works, who got it from Cave scratchings, who got the idea from nature. Do you see my point?
You do have to give it to JBI. He is nothing if not a master at parroting everything his professors have taught him as gospel truth: Wade-Giles is an abomination because...? Well because it has fallen out of fashion in academic circles and we all know fashion is everything. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because...? Well because his audience is to be found more among those who simply love to read (certainly proof of irrelevance) and not among the "serious" critics in academic circles... who we all know are the absolute most important word on literature. Seriously, what writer, worthy of the name, would dare to write the least slight sonnet without first consulting the latest thoughts making the rounds of academia? And surely we must all bow before JBI's unflinching ego (if nothing else). The sheer audacity and unflinching bravura of dismissing the "limited theoretical minds" of professors and "tedious" writers (to say nothing of the mere minions of an on-line literature forum) who have actually achieved a level of respect in areas in which he is but a mere student. I must join his fan club tout suite.:nod:
Or better yet, we should all flaunt our knowledge of a mediocre, senile critic, and his pseudo-critical mediocre Freudian readings of books that he prepares for the non-serious serious reader so that they can come onto public forums, and go to their friends, and preach how Harold Bloom said this, so it must be true, and whatnot.
Seriously, Frye was a public critic, and I respect him - he won a Governor General's Award even, and is credited with essentially creating English Canadian literature, in the sense that he established it as a distinct tradition. A very public intellectual, yet I don't come here and bash him, and I don't see people using his ideas for some reason, perhaps because he isn't the kind of critic to say, "These are the good books, all else is toss," or whatnot.
Seriously, Wade-Giles isn't used because a) it does not at all resemble Chinese at all, b) a far closer system, that is used by Chinese people exists, c) it is insufficient in conveying the actual sound of characters, as it does not take tone markings as easily, d) the system has been out of use in publication for decades, e) it is a colonialist romanization essentially created for the use of diplomatic supremacy over the country it tried to "translate, f) it is ugly, g) it is confusing, especially with its tedious rules for apostrophes, hyphens, and umlauts, h) it is confusing for non-speakers of Chinese trying to grasp basic Chinese pronunciation, as the WaDe "t" is clearly a "d" and the Chinese "t" would be far easier rendered "t" instead of "t'", and the Chinese "b" is not aspirated, and would be better off written as "b" instead of "p", and "g" is far more accurate than "k" so forth, not to mention that i), the system is very old, and the actual language that it tries to romanize has perhaps moved forward in pronunciation, in addition to the geographic entry point the WaDe system is based on.
Oh, but this is modern snobbery - you iron-tower lording shmuck you, you want to use a system that is a) more widely accepted, b) easier to read, and c) more known outside of academies, ironically, than inside, as Wade Giles right now is essentially limited, in practical use, to academics sifting through older Sinological documents, and using dated classical Chinese dictionaries, which, unfortunately, have not yet been replaced by more up to date Pinyin-based ones (though most real scholars now I think, know Chinese, and just flip to a modern day Chinese dictionary as reference).
But yes, I am merely a student, so I shouldn't comment.
Lets be honest. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because Harold Bloom chose to be irrelevant. I don't even get the point of mentioning him - all he does is preach that people should read better books - why not then just skip the middle man and read better books without reading Bloom? He has essentially been rehashing the same argument for 20 years now anyway, with the same moapy, lamenting self-elevating sighs that profess "literature and culture are dying, and I am the only one smart enough to see it, and to tell people, and what do they do? they ignore poor me, who is the only one in academia who can see the truth, etc. etc. etc."
Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts, and people essentially consider themselves as only belonging to a sort of "Western Tradition", Harold Bloom may hold ground, as he lashes out against the mediocrity of American scholarship - well, a lot of American scholarship is mediocre, as with all countries (though you guys like to give podiums to those who fit with affirmative action plans more so than perhaps other countries, which may not be a bad thing perhaps) but he exaggerates things. Truth be told, the reason why universities create new perspectives, is quite simply that it is cheaper to employ less professors to teach bigger classes, and therefore, in order to keep jobs intact, especially in a department such as English (especially American literature in the US) where there are far too many Ph. D.s for job postings, the departments and academics must differentiate themselves, as a means of staying alive and current, rather than falling to obsolescence.
Quite simply put, I do not fit within a Western Tradition, and I do not live in a city of people belonging to one tradition, much less a Western one. Other people on these boards perhaps also feel that other traditions effect them, so how can we say that Bloom's Western Canon holds for all of us? Simply put, it is one mans view, and simply put, the essays and "canons" he focuses on are rather eccentric and polemic choices for the sake of furthering his own "political" agenda of "I am super critic, buy my book, sigh, everybody dismisses me because they resent, etc. etc."
But I guess you are just resenting because I refused to autograph your baseball hat.
Someone's jealous he doesn't have a fan club.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Oh, but this is modern snobbery - you iron-tower lording shmuck you...
Brilliant critical analysis. Truly worthy of you in every way.:nod:
I suppose Bloom is largely irrelevant... but no more than almost any critic. With the exception of the few who rise to the level of literature (Walter Pater, T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Octavio Paz, J.L. Borges, etc...) the best that can be expected is something of a temporal guide. I personally found a few intriguing ideas in Bloom and I must credit him with having led me to a number of quite interesting writers, but I admittedly found more of both in Borges. The point is the vast majority of academic critics are no more relevant than Bloom. Few are ever published (or worthy of being published) outside of academic journals. Few are ever read outside of the same circles and even fewer will continue to be read. You seemingly assume that it is the hermetic world of academia that is most "relevant" to the survival of a work of literature. This, undoubtedly, was part of what Bloom rails against in his admittedly tedious rants about "resentment": the notion that the survival of literature should be left up to the esoteric world of academia with all their political, social, and economic motivations, as opposed to the "common readers" and the subsequent generations of writers. Of course academia plays a role in the survival of literature... and even the re-evaluation and rediscovery of literature... but surely it is the not-so-common "common reader" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term... and not in the sense of the mass audience with their Harry Potter and Twilight novels) and subsequent writers who are most important. I somehow doubt that Bloom or Frye or Eagleton or Elizabeth Kantor are more important and relevant to Cormac McCarthy than Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor, Melville, and even Shakespeare. That said... I quite liked your recommendation of Arthur Symons. Once again... however... Symons was actually a writer of decadent Symbolist style poetry and not an academic.
Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts...
Bingo! I wondered how long it would take until you reverted to your usual anti-Americanisms and starting singing the Canadian National Anthem. Us American cretins... only capable of reading American literature... like Harry Potter... (oh yeah... that's British... but the boy's got a good solid American name anyway... so you get my drift)... and listening to country and western music... like Shania Twain... (oops! forgot... she's Canadian... must be an anomaly)... watchin' pro-wrestling, and drinkin' beer (not even good beer, at that, like Molsen Dry and Labbatt's Blue). How unlike the sophisticate denizens of the Great White North:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M
:D
Someone's jealous he doesn't have a fan club.:lol:
Is it that obvious?:eek:
If I don't get my own fan club I'm taking my toys and going home.:smash::lol::goof:
Whoa, was that directed at a person here? Come on JBI, that's over the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I've got my issues with Bloom, but he's amassed quite a career, and spanned an enormous amount of literature. He's got his pluses and minuses but the shear breath of his work ranks him up their with any of the major critics of the century.Quote:
Lets be honest. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because Harold Bloom chose to be irrelevant. I don't even get the point of mentioning him - all he does is preach that people should read better books - why not then just skip the middle man and read better books without reading Bloom? He has essentially been rehashing the same argument for 20 years now anyway, with the same moapy, lamenting self-elevating sighs that profess "literature and culture are dying, and I am the only one smart enough to see it, and to tell people, and what do they do? they ignore poor me, who is the only one in academia who can see the truth, etc. etc. etc."
:lol: What is with you tonight?Quote:
Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts,
The world is in a position of accepting more traditions. The western cannon isn't dimished by it.Quote:
Quite simply put, I do not fit within a Western Tradition, and I do not live in a city of people belonging to one tradition, much less a Western one. Other people on these boards perhaps also feel that other traditions effect them, so how can we say that Bloom's Western Canon holds for all of us? Simply put, it is one mans view, and simply put, the essays and "canons" he focuses on are rather eccentric and polemic choices for the sake of furthering his own "political" agenda of "I am super critic, buy my book, sigh, everybody dismisses me because they resent, etc. etc."
I agree, and I think he does not deserves so many attention here. He is mediocre, end of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
JBI, I'd like to see your top ten.
(Yes, I know things like "top ten" are typicaly Bloom, but this forum for me is not a place to argue and prove something. When I want to argue seriously, I write a thesis. The last one I wrote, since I came back, was about Julio Cortázar - and it's not published yet. So, I'm tired. I work a lot - writing, reading, teaching... But here in this forum, I just want to meet people for a good talking, nothing very seriously, just for relax).
1.Bhagavad Gita
2.Shahnameh
3.Dream of the Red Chamber
4.Divine Comedy
5.Hamlet
6.The Republic
7.Book of Job
8.Flowers of Evil
9.Metamorphoses
10.Three Hundred Tang Poems
Luke, I hate to tell you this, but no contemporary poet takes the sonnet form seriously anymore. This is not to say there is no market for formalist structures, these exist, but they are basically designed to generate income for contest publishers. Real poets alive today, like Robert Thomas, or Al Maginnes, do different things with the natural iambic flow of English--even bigger poets, like Simon Armitage, who is more conscious of rhythm and form, really doesn't use sonnet structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I cannot beat you on your depth of knowledge when it comes to classicism, but formalism is not making a comeback in the modern poetry market.
As to this topic, well, I do not know how you get past the usual suspects, and those are fairly boring.
The entire surviving Greek corpus
The Bible
Cervantes DG
Chaucer
The Arabian Nights
Virgil and Dante follows on his heels
Shakespeare
and from the little I've read of TBG, which mortal cites, I suppose one must include it, but I know very little of classical Asian literature.
That's actually a pretty good one. I wouldn't personally have chosen a few of those works, but I must say that is a pretty interesting list.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Mine would be something like.
Dante
Shakespeare - if you need a text, either the Ardent Shakespeare or the First Folio
Virgil
Milton
The Bible
Chu-Ci - especially Li Sao and the "barbaric poems" by Yu Quan
300 Tang Poems
The Manyoshu
Mahabharata
And Either Journey to the West or Dream of the Red Chamber
That is a difficult list to compile of course, and I wouldn't compile one, had you not forced me, in a sense, but in terms of influence, cultural significance, and quality those are probably the best I can come up with on the spot. All of those works have been influential especially dealing with literature, and have been well liked for a long time, and become standards of both education and aesthetic example.
But don't quote me on that - under different mood, I could have chosen 10 different books. The value game doesn't seem much fun to me.
However, the most influent books (or writers) in the whole world, ever, (in my personal oppinion) are:
- Vedas
- I-Ching
- Bible
- Homer's
- Plato's
- Aristotle's
- Bhagavad Gita
- Koran
- Shakespeare's plays
- Darwin's
- Karl Marx's
- Freud's
- Charles Baudelaire's
They really changed the course of history.
P.S: It's difficult for me chose only 10, but I put the top ten in bold.