Any Harold Bloom Recommendations?

The Anxiety of Influence?
The Invention of the Human?
How to Read and Why?
The Western Canon?
The Art of Reading Poetry?

Any Harold Bloom Recommendations?

Just wondered if anyone would recommend any thing by Harold Bloom? I have read an extract from The Anxiety of Influence (in Norton), and today a little of The Invention of the Human, though as passionate as it was it only seemed really suitable for A-Level/first year students. Ideally I would be looking for something at least degree level and of lasting appeal. Any suggestions?

Alternatively, I would be interested in anything of lasting appeal to at least degree standard (or beyond) that would further strengthen my understanding of Shakespeare, thanks.

I can say that a few chapters of Western Canon are worthwhile (Dickinson, Chaucer, Milton, Wordsworth, Proust, Joyce) and a few can be easily ignored. However they are not very theoretical.
How to read and how is simplistic. I suppose the anxiety is the better guess and I forgot the name, but there is one book dedicated only to shakespeare...

Yeah, the book dedicated to Shakespeare is The Invention of the Human it's a big book but it seems to be a little confused as to its intended audience and probably best left for A-Level stuff, though it did make interesting reading. I will cross the How to read book off then, it doesn't sound very academic anyway and so maybe the Western Cannon is worth a look. Thanks.

The Visionary Company, The Anxiety of Influence, The Ringers in the Tower and Wallace Stevens: the Poems of Our Climate.

Seriously, after 82 his work seems to have completely slid. There are moments in his later works, but nothing that compares to his original genius.

Are you reading specifically for him, or for lit-crit/theory in general? There are many other theorists out there, and if you are just interested in that sort of thing, you would be probably grateful to a reading in Northrop Frye, as he is the king.

Wow thanks. No I am not reading specifically for him or for any particular theory I’m just looking to build up critical base I suppose. I just came across his Human Invention and thought that I would like to read something by him with a little more substance. I’m doing a part-time degree on the last level but it’s not really for that, just that as he is a fan of Wilde and Shakespeare, like me, so he sort of appealed I suppose.

I will check out the Frye, I may do my dissertation on Shakespeare so anything of a critical ‘must have’ will come in handy (though I know there is masses on that front) but really, my part-time degree means that I can do the work and have time for ‘personal projects’ into the bargain. Currently studying modernist/postmodernist literature and theory, Restoration literature and new media, but personally looking at Dante, Shakespeare and Greek Tragedy.

Oh I checked out the Munro I managed to get The Love of a Good Woman and Lives of Girls and Women from the library, started the Girls. Really, I just want to read everything and there just isn’t time.

Thanks for the help.

Though of course reading widely is not the same thing as reading deeply, I realise that, but I just want to get a cursory foundation in Dante and Greek mythology while I have the time.

His later work is really rubbish. The Invention of the Human is useless. I would recommend The Modern Critical Interpretations series that he edited. Apart from that The Anxiety of Influence is my favorite among his works. He is a college students' critic, conservative enough to satisfy the old professors and help the students write their papers without rocking the boat too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

His later work is really rubbish. The Invention of the Human is useless. I would recommend The Modern Critical Interpretations series that he edited. Apart from that The Anxiety of Influence is my favorite among his works. He is a college students' critic, conservative enough to satisfy the old professors and help the students write their papers without rocking the boat too much.

---

You cannot deny though, that his criticism early in his career on the Romantics was of high quality. Of course, now he has slipped, but I guess he doesn't care, because he is more famous, and richer than ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Are you reading specifically for him, or for lit-crit/theory in general? There are many other theorists out there, and if you are just interested in that sort of thing, you would be probably grateful to a reading in Northrop Frye, as he is the king.

---

I know this came up before in my topic on Bloom's Invention of the Human.

What specifically by Frye would you recommend? I've read a good portion of Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy, but that consisted simply of 3 lectures that skirted being very text specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Wow thanks. No I am not reading specifically for him or for any particular theory I’m just looking to build up critical base I suppose. I just came across his Human Invention and thought that I would like to read something by him with a little more substance. I’m doing a part-time degree on the last level but it’s not really for that, just that as he is a fan of Wilde and Shakespeare, like me, so he sort of appealed I suppose.

---

Might I suggest some of Bloom's compilation works - his literary figures series, etc. The works feature an introduction by Bloom followed by a compilation of essays by other critics.

As for general Shakespearean criticism - check out the established studies. By this I mean (in no particular order) Dr. Johnson, Northrop Frye, A.C. Bradley, Walter Pater, Kenneth Burke, STC on Hamlet, T.S Eliot, William Hazlitt, etc. I know I'm forgetting many others.

Yeah, when he turned in a obssesive religious maniac which good is Freuspeare... anyways, the canon parts are just reading, it does not explain anything...
I prefer those days Umberto Eco while dealing with the influence, and I think that T.S.Eliot is a good reading before Bloom. I would not skip Borges either, Borges had no intention to write a theory, but he sometimes seems to have the best dialogues with Eliot without even talking with him. Also, sometimes Bloom seems to repeat borges, just the idea of angst replaced Borges "nobodiness"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

You cannot deny though, that his criticism early in his career on the Romantics was of high quality. Of course, now he has slipped, but I guess he doesn't care, because he is more famous, and richer than ever.

---

According to a New York Times piece printed 1994 the reason is that he needs to earn extra cash to pay for a chronically disabled son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

According to a New York Times piece printed 1994 the reason is that he needs to earn extra cash to pay for a chronically disabled son.

---

Well there you have it - reaching a wider audience means making more money, and he needs money, therefore this was, I guess, a good idea.

Still though, you must admit, his scholarship has taken its toll, and he spends his time ranting against invisible enemies instead of criticizing now.

I find it ironic how he can talk about dumbing down so often, yet dumbed down his own work in order to broaden his audience. Still, he isn't without his place - his anthologies as Kafka's Crow has mentioned, are incredibly useful, and his earlier works were great.

That being said, there is really nothing wrong with his new books, but they simply aren't really literary criticism or theory, and aren't really scholarly, even though they try to pretend to be.

The Western Canon seems more of a polemic plea for money than anything, and the list in the back is almost assuredly proof of it, but still, it has its moments.

I think the problem though is in order to reach a wide audience as a critic it is almost required to dumb down, or be an unbelievably brilliant writer, in terms of creativity and style.

Bloom has his moments, but he is far stronger playing on the academic field than on the personal field. His earlier scholarship is more formal, and therefore is significantly stronger, and significantly more difficult to understand.

His new stuff tries to imitate the style, I would argue, of Frye, in terms of the wit and irony, but it doesn't really maintain its strength in argument.

Whereas Frye was confident, and insightful, and able to really reach a wide audience without sacrificing much, Bloom seems unable. He seems unable to formulate the words needed, and as a result, has been forced to become some sort of "knight for the literary establishment." instead of a critic like he used to be.

That being said, he still gets large press coverage, mostly because he has the unbelievable ability to read and write faster than anyone else, and is generally well known.

Still though, in terms of insight, there are far more interesting critics out there, even outside of his "School of Resentment".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Might I suggest some of Bloom's compilation works - his literary figures series, etc. The works feature an introduction by Bloom followed by a compilation of essays by other critics.

As for general Shakespearean criticism - check out the established studies. By this I mean (in no particular order) Dr. Johnson, Northrop Frye, A.C. Bradley, Walter Pater, Kenneth Burke, STC on Hamlet, T.S Eliot, William Hazlitt, etc. I know I'm forgetting many others.

---

Thanks, I'll take a note of these and the suggestions of those already mentioned to turn to when I can.

Quote:

---

The great monument of our canon, and so of our civilization, is Shakespeare, and I hasten to insist that by “our” I do not mean the Western world alone. Shakespeare is the universal center of the world-canon: Christian European and American white males are only a fraction of his audience.

Harold Bloom Shakespeare and the Value of Personality in The Tanner Lecture on Human Values (1995)

---

'Be careful with sweeping statements. You can never know all, hence you can never know the best or the worst of possibilities' my teacher used to say. Does Bloom know the whole of the world canon that he could put an occidental, thoroughly English personality (not even thoroughly European) at its centre? I would be very, very suspicious of any such claim. It sounds so very 19th century! Here we find Orientalism trying to find a voice over a decade after its death. Compare this quotation from Asiatic Journal published in 1832:

Quote:

---

And so they who listened with rapture to the songs of the bards overran the provinces of those who were charmed with the fairy tale.

Quoted by Gauri Viswanatham The Mask of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India Page 118

---

Yeah, he does have this problem and always try to impose the vision. I have no trouble to accept Shakespeare was the writer that is more universal or the one that is best know around the world, but he is not always "the center" (something more acceptable with english literature). But there is influential works that have no influence from Shakespeare (Dante, The Bible, 1001 Nights) even in the "western canon".
(Another of his problems is the constant freudian approach)

I would start with "The Anxiety of Influence". It's my personal favorite of his.

Reading non-fiction books about fiction books...hmmm. Don't read any Harold Bloom books - or even watch Orlando Bloom movies for that matter - just read anything that sounds appealing to you. Unless one has to for school, why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to such torture?

I know this may seem "ignorant" to some, but outside the academic world, why do people even bother with books that explain works of fiction?

While you all tackle that question, I'm going to read my book, Richard Pryor: Jokes Explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Reading non-fiction books about fiction books...hmmm. Don't read any Harold Bloom books - or even watch Orlando Bloom movies for that matter - just read anything that sounds appealing to you. Unless one has to for school, why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to such torture?

I know this may seem "ignorant" to some, but outside the academic world, why do people even bother with books that explain works of fiction?

While you all tackle that question, I'm going to read my book, Richard Pryor: Jokes Explained.

---

I think it has something to do with actually liking the non-fiction. Just like people in psychology read in psychology, not just case studies but theories. So do many people who like literature, not just read literature but read about literature. Have you ever wanted to read a biography of an author? It seems the same thing.

Ultimately, I think the idea is not so much the actually reading of the critical text, but the enrichment of reading fiction after the text. There is a refined pleasure in knowing more about what your reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

The Anxiety of Influence?
The Invention of the Human?
How to Read and Why?
The Western Canon?
The Art of Reading Poetry?

Any Harold Bloom Recommendations?

Just wondered if anyone would recommend any thing by Harold Bloom? I have read an extract from The Anxiety of Influence (in Norton), and today a little of The Invention of the Human, though as passionate as it was it only seemed really suitable for A-Level/first year students. Ideally I would be looking for something at least degree level and of lasting appeal. Any suggestions?

Alternatively, I would be interested in anything of lasting appeal to at least degree standard (or beyond) that would further strengthen my understanding of Shakespeare, thanks.

---

I've read all of these. I think all are worth reading, but the key work is "The Western Canon". It's aimed at the common reader, but I'd recommend it to anyone. I think it falls into the same category as Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality", which was picked by Jim al-Khalili as his desert Island disk choice a couple of weeks ago - even though he is a top nuclear physicist he did not poo poo it as 'just for schoolkids'.

Some books are like Charles Dickens, loved by the public and serious critics, without any boundaries :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I will cross the How to read book off then, it doesn't sound very academic anyway and so maybe the Western Cannon is worth a look. Thanks.

---

The title is a misleading! It's pitched at about the same level as "The Western Canon" and "The Invention of the Human".

"The Western Canon" starts with an elegy for the canon and an elegy for Shakespeare as the centre of the canon, so it's definitely Shakespeare heavy! And it has a broader vision than his other books. So it's definitely the one to start with.

Bloom concentrates on 26 writers in the Western Canon, and "How to Read" can be looked at as extending his views on a few other writers. But to see his views extended to many more writers (100 to be precise) try "Genius".

Another good one is "Where is wisdom to be found". I also quite like "Novels and Novelists"... He has other collections of essays on "Epics", "Short Stories", and on (which I haven't looked at... hey I can't *just* read Bloom,...)

Bloom thought he hadn't said enough about Hamlet in any of the books you mention and published a separate book, which is sitting on my shelf begging to be read...

If you do fancy reading "The Art of Reading poetry" think about buying "The Best Poems of the English Language", which has "the Art" as a forward.

I notice the anti-Bloom faction are coming on strong in this thread. But just read the cover of the Western canon and see who praises Bloom: Christoper Ricks, Malcolm Bradbury, James Wood, Peter Ackroyd, A.S. Byatt, Frank Kermode, Michael Dirda... and on... Is there any work of modern, synoptic criticism that makes a stronger claim to be canonical?

Thanks a lot. Though it was two years ago since I started this thread (bumped up from somewhere) and in that time JBI has long since put me off Bloom anyway. :lol:

Quote:

---

The Invention of the Human?
How to Read and Why?

---

I have those two and I thought they were good reads. I thought The Invention of the Human was actually quite good. I haven't read The Anxiety of Influence, but I'm familiar with his theory and frankly I think it's somewhere between silly and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Reading non-fiction books about fiction books...hmmm. Don't read any Harold Bloom books - or even watch Orlando Bloom movies for that matter - just read anything that sounds appealing to you. Unless one has to for school, why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to such torture?

I know this may seem "ignorant" to some, but outside the academic world, why do people even bother with books that explain works of fiction?

While you all tackle that question, I'm going to read my book, Richard Pryor: Jokes Explained.

---

Who would ever dream of trying to understand something they take pleasure from? Next time a friend reads a book or watches a movie, I'll ask them if they like it, but don't tell me why! I don't want to here about its technical aspects, how it participates in a genre, or how its characters are modeled on archetypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I have those two and I thought they were good reads. I thought The Invention of the Human was actually quite good. I haven't read The Anxiety of Influence, but I'm familiar with his theory and frankly I think it's somewhere between silly and simple.

---

I've read both. The Shakespeare book (which I also started a thread on, maybe a year ago?) is a decent read, but so-so literary criticism. The Anxiety of Influence is an annoying read, although theoretically interesting.

The problem with the Anxiety though is it takes a basic idea, inspiration and influence, and then Freudianizes it, and throws in Greek language to make it complicated, when really it is a pretty standard idea, but a Freudian view of Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The problem with the Anxiety though is it takes a basic idea, inspiration and influence, and then Freudianizes it, and throws in Greek language to make it complicated, when really it is a pretty standard idea, but a Freudian view of Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent.

---

Yeah, I think that's right on. Good way to look at it JBI.

That is a good point JBI. It remains however my favorite work of Bloom's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yeah, I think that's right on. Good way to look at it JBI.

---

It's interesting looking back on my old posts (though sometimes horrifying) and seeing how my opinions have morphed over the past couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's interesting looking back on my old posts (though sometimes horrifying) and seeing how my opinions have morphed over the past couple of years.

---

Not necessarily a bad thing - though I for one would like some more intellectual consistency. It helps that we're young.

My favorite effort by HB is his collaboration with Rosenberg in the Book of J. He purports in it that the Pentateuch was written by a women in the son of King Soloman's court and as a work or witty and ironic fancy and very much from a sophisticated female point of view. He goes on to argue that with Dante and Shakespeare she is part of the pinnacle of the western literary tradition. Great fun. I personally prefer to take this quite seriously.

HB is an old kraut, and his opinionated arrogance is just annoying. Though I really enjoyed reading his thoughts on romantic poets, his chastising of Stephen King and J.K. Rowling is just disgustingly smug and ivory tower. I read Harry Potter as an 8-year-old and that's what got my interest in literature going, according to Bloom I should be reading King and pulp fiction only, when my favorite books are from Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Of course I couldn't care less what he thinks, I don't need his stamp of approval, I like Stephen King as well. I do like Bloom's rejection on feminist and marxist critique though, which I also find pointless.

Sorry for digging up an old thread btw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hampusforev

HB is an old kraut, and his opinionated arrogance is just annoying. Though I really enjoyed reading his thoughts on romantic poets, his chastising of Stephen King and J.K. Rowling is just disgustingly smug and ivory tower. I read Harry Potter as an 8-year-old and that's what got my interest in literature going, according to Bloom I should be reading King and pulp fiction only, when my favorite books are from Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Of course I couldn't care less what he thinks, I don't need his stamp of approval, I like Stephen King as well. I do like Bloom's rejection on feminist and marxist critique though, which I also find pointless.

Sorry for digging up an old thread btw...

---

You apologize, yet it is ironic, you need to tell us you think him arrogant , annoying, and criticize his chastising of such named authors, as well as his smugness, and eliteness. But, in the end, you wanted us to know? Is that not hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy seems a bit harsh... Inconsistency at the most, that apology was mostly for propriety's sake. I really wanted to share my annoyance with Bloom, I never claimed otherwise. I probably should have waited until after work to post because at the moment I'm peering over my shoulder trying to look busy with work and thus find it hard to concentrate. What I intended to put across was an admiration for some of Bloom's work but annoyance with his attitude, and I sort of got derailed and just attacked him. Anyway, I do think Bloom's arrogance is detrimental to "high literature" because he makes it seem really inaccessible to people below is particular wavelength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hampusforev

Hypocrisy seems a bit harsh... Inconsistency at the most, that apology was mostly for propriety's sake. I really wanted to share my annoyance with Bloom, I never claimed otherwise. I probably should have waited until after work to post because at the moment I'm peering over my shoulder trying to look busy with work and thus find it hard to concentrate. What I intended to put across was an admiration for some of Bloom's work but annoyance with his attitude, and I sort of got derailed and just attacked him. Anyway, I do think Bloom's arrogance is detrimental to "high literature" because he makes it seem really inaccessible to people below is particular wavelength.

---

You misunderstood my post perhaps, I was just commenting on the way you criticize Bloom for commenting on authors you do not like, and sharing his opinion on their mediocrity, meanwhile criticizing Bloom, which is essentially what he was doing, only he is famous.

He has probably read more than most readers, and this makes his opinions more important.

I just read David Lindsay's "A Voyage To Arcturus" which is available on librivox.com and its introduction said that Bloom loved this book so much that he actually wrote a sequel to it called "Voyage to Lucifer" or something like that, and that this is Bloom's sole work of fiction, which he has since disowned and not allowed to be reprinted. I wonder if anyone on this forum has read it, and if so, what was it like? Lindsay's novel was an interesting if somewhat bizzarre Schopenhauerian allegory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

I think it has something to do with actually liking the non-fiction. Just like people in psychology read in psychology, not just case studies but theories. So do many people who like literature, not just read literature but read about literature. Have you ever wanted to read a biography of an author? It seems the same thing.

Ultimately, I think the idea is not so much the actually reading of the critical text, but the enrichment of reading fiction after the text. There is a refined pleasure in knowing more about what your reading.

---

I would also add that: good books generates interest just a like good movies or good music does. And instead of posters, toys, or other fan materials, analysis about fiction are satisfying in the same way as these derivative products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceBolkonsky

My favorite effort by HB is his collaboration with Rosenberg in the Book of J. He purports in it that the Pentateuch was written by a women in the son of King Soloman's court and as a work or witty and ironic fancy and very much from a sophisticated female point of view. He goes on to argue that with Dante and Shakespeare she is part of the pinnacle of the western literary tradition. Great fun. I personally prefer to take this quite seriously.

---

I think I read two or three books by Bloom all of which I have mostly forgotten except for the commentaries in The Book of J. Somewhere in those other books he suggests that J was Solomon's mother, Bathsheba.

Whatever anyone has to say about Bloom, his ideas about J, and the link to Bathsheba, I find valuable.

I am in the middle of Bloom's Genius--Bloom's list of the top 100--written at age 71. Maybe slight fall from quality offrom Shakespeare Invention of The Human and Western Canon. still excellent and interesting. Few could write this and say they read all 100. Occasional irritation with Bloom continually rhapsodizing over this and that, and, by my account rare misses for Bloom here and there where he's yet to read, such as e.g. Walter Arndt's Goethe translation or On The Edge of Reason by Mirslav Krleza that rivals Kafka's The Trial.